Evolution is not a fact
Apocalypse
scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where we
came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific fact.
Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
(A)
Lee Jay
That evolution occurs is an observed fact. We see it, we use it, we
even suffer from it. This has been true for thousands of years.
We've bred plants and animals (that's evolution). We've been attacked
by microorganisms and many of us have died from them. Those that
survived went on to produce offspring with more immunity to those
organisms than the population before them. That is evolution. It's
been observed so many times, by so many people, in so many ways, that
it occurs it's a fact.
The descriptions of how it occurs, what actually happens when it
occurs, why it occurs, and when it has occurred, are theories.
Theories are what you get when you obtain substantial evidence in
support of hypotheses. Such hypotheses can never become more than
"theories" because that's the highest level achievable in modern
science. The theory of Special Relativity is extremely well proven,
used daily in everything from accelerators to GPS satellites. Yet it
remains a theory - a description or model of observed reality.
Lee Jay
Boikat
> It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
> scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where we
> came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
Evolution is an observed phenomena, therefore, it is a fact. Your
mistake (or ignorance) is conflating the attempt to *explain* the
observed phenomena.
>
> This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific fact.
> Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
Crack open a book on basic science and cure your ignorance.
Boikat
Shane
Not surprisingly, you miss the whole point of science. Science is not in
the business of saying this theory, which explains this fact, is set in
stone and is impossible to refute. That level of dogmatism is from the
superstitious end of the spectrum, and has no place in science. For
something to be scientific it must be falsifiable, which means capable
of being shown not to be a fact. Thus if someone does contradict your
"fact", then they would be doing science, not lying.
HTH
HAND
Bodega
Unless you have the courage to put forth your own theory, you, sir,
are a sniveling coward.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> It is at *best* a theory.
_And_ a fact. Let alone that you clearly don't know shit about what "theory"
means in a scientific context. Thanks for demonstrating your total
cluelessness.
> The truth is that there is no conclusive
> scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where
> we came from
Thanks for yet more proof of your willful ignorance. Evolutionary theory
does not even _try_ to answer any question of origin.
> This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific fact.
But not the criteria of some funny concept called "grammar". More evidence
supporting the claim that you never saw a classroom from the inside.
> Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
Hic Rhodos. Hic salta. Show us evidence supporting your above claims.
Well, let's play fast-forward here to save time. If you even try, you will
present the same old bullshit that you morontheists always hurl at thinking
educated persons (because you have nothing else). We will debunk it once
more. You have made a fool of yourself (yes, even more than now) and are
back to square one. What now?
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Dwib
> It is at *best* a theory.
Are you telling me that the theory of evolution is.... a theory!!!
Great Scot! My world is shattered!
Dwib
BRAINIAC
The theory of evolution is nothing to do with the origin of life.
Theories are not facts, they are explanations of the facts.
Your statement is not a scientific fact, it is an opinion.
So are you going to accuse everyone who has responded to your post
liars?
If you do what facts will you present to prove that they are liars?
Rusty Sites
> It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
> scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where we
> came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
The fact is that you don't have near enough knowledge to make such a
pronouncement.
>
> This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific fact.
> Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
>
The first sentence makes no sense but the second one seems to reveal the
message anyway. You said and that settles it.
Ernest Major
<Apoca...@NoSpam.Com> writes
http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML
--
alias Ernest Major
Ron O
> scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where we
> came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
What do you think that scientific facts are?
All of science is tentative. Even the touted "laws." You just have
to look into the fact that we had to rewrite the first law of thermo
when we discovered radioactivity and nuclear fusion.
Scientific facts are just things that it would be "perverse" to deny.
They are not written in stone, and can be changed at any time with new
information.
Biological evolution is a scientific fact. Even some of the non YEC
ID perps understand this. Just ask Behe if evolution isn't a
scientific fact. He has no problem with common descent and descent
with modification. He just thinks that some intelligent designer
tweeked things along the way or just got the whole thing rolling
billions of years ago.
>
> This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific fact.
> Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
You are the liar. Even if you are just too ignorant to know any
better. An untruth is still a lie in my book. You can call it
something else, by why bother. Probably, just have to look at the
source of the lie to know what to call it.
Ron Okimoto
>
> (A)
BRAINIAC
> On Apr 24, 11:50 pm, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
>
> > It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
> > scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where we
> > came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
>
> What do you think that scientific facts are?
>
> All of science is tentative. Even the touted "laws." You just have
> to look into the fact that we had to rewrite the first law of thermo
> when we discovered radioactivity and nuclear fusion.
Just out of curiousity do you have a citation to support that
statement?
>
> Scientific facts are just things that it would be "perverse" to deny.
> They are not written in stone, and can be changed at any time with new
> information.
>
> Biological evolution is a scientific fact. Even some of the non YEC
> ID perps understand this. Just ask Behe if evolution isn't a
> scientific fact. He has no problem with common descent and descent
> with modification. He just thinks that some intelligent designer
> tweeked things along the way or just got the whole thing rolling
> billions of years ago.
>
>
>
> > This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific fact.
> > Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
>
> You are the liar. Even if you are just too ignorant to know any
> better. An untruth is still a lie in my book. You can call it
> something else, by why bother. Probably, just have to look at the
> source of the lie to know what to call it.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
>
>
>
>
> > (A)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Iain
> It is at *best* a theory.
"Theory" IS the best an idea can be.
> The truth is that there is no conclusive scientific evidence
Non sequeter.
Theoryhood has nothing to do with uncertainty vs. uncertainty.
~Iain
Ernest Major
<728e9d78-5d55-42f8...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
BRAINIAC <nou...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>> All of science is tentative. Even the touted "laws." You just have
>> to look into the fact that we had to rewrite the first law of thermo
>> when we discovered radioactivity and nuclear fusion.
>
>Just out of curiousity do you have a citation to support that
>statement?
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics is conservation of energy. When
radioactivity was discovered it was necessary to redefine energy to
include mass.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ye Old One
Wrong.
Evolution is a fact, one supported by so much evidence it requires a
total fool to claim it doesn't happen.
The Theory Of Evolution, normally referred to as ToE, is the best
explanation we have of how it works.
Now, the first of the "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" at
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist puts you
in your place.
[quote]
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the
middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below
a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a
well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world
that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a
descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about
the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of
relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations
about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent
with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The
NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly
confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The
fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have
evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations,
the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot
see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their
existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in
cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make
physicists' conclusions less certain.
[end quote]
So there you have it. I hope this will have corrected your
misunderstanding.
--
Bob.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<a3d91e25-333d-4b2f...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
<Ray-ray> you _do_ mean _Gene_ Scott, don't you? </Ray-ray>
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<728e9d78-5d55-42f8...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
> On 25 Apr, 12:05, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Apr 24, 11:50 pm, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
>>
>>> It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
>>> scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where we
>>> came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
>>
>> What do you think that scientific facts are?
>>
>> All of science is tentative. Even the touted "laws." You just have
>> to look into the fact that we had to rewrite the first law of thermo
>> when we discovered radioactivity and nuclear fusion.
>
> Just out of curiousity do you have a citation to support that
> statement?
Errm... 1 Thermo is all about energy. However, it has Been Revealed that E =
mc^2 and all that, so following the work of Curie, Berquel, and of course the
Big E himself, 1 Thermo had to be modified. 1 Thermo now includes _mass_.
It's gotta.
moxm...@gmail.com
you are aware that the word theory in scientific usage means much much
more (in terms of how strong and reliable it is) than the layman's
usage, right?
Inez
I submit to you that we rarely if ever know anything to a 100% degree
of accuracy, and that the usual reason that people insist on an
impossibly high standard of proof is that they are desperately
clinging to a belief system that is much less well supported.
loua...@yahoo.com
> Apocalypse wrote:
> > This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific fact.
> > Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
>
> The first sentence makes no sense but the second one seems to reveal the
> message anyway. You said and that settles it.
Has this one been through before, or is he an entirely new ticket-
holder in the barking-mad seats?
Inez
His google profile does not list any posts before April, but this
could be a new profile.
Rusty Sites
I think he is a new one all fired up by the movie.
Mark Isaak
> It is at *best* a theory.
Which makes it even more robust than a fact.
> The truth is that there is no conclusive
> scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about
> where we came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
A few facts concerning evolution:
Life has changed continually over the last 3 billion years at least.
All plants, animals, and fungi arose from a common ancestor.
All populations acquire variation via mutations.
Via natural selection, certain variations are often favored.
Given the current state of life and earth, evolution is inevitable.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
neutr...@gmail.com
<MAILTOsecret...@carcosa.de> wrote:
> Well, let's play fast-forward here to save time. If you even try, you will
> present the same old bullshit that you morontheists always hurl at thinking
> educated persons (because you have nothing else). We will debunk it once
> more. You have made a fool of yourself (yes, even more than now) and are
> back to square one. What now?
As he is on square one, as you observed, logically he will just
reassert his original position. Consider this code fragment...
void Apocalypse(void)
{
while(1)
{
assert(idiocy);
self.bodypart = usenet.platter.myass;
self.reattach(myass);
}
}
And he will call this learning.
Cory Albrecht
I guess that gravity must not happen, then, as scientists have little
(if any) clue as to how it is transmitted across space.
Compared to the lack of knowledge about how gravity works, the support
that evolutionary theory has from fossils, molecular biology, dual
nested hierarchy, anatomical & molecular vestiges, (palaeo)biogeography,
and much more becomes not just mountains of support but entire planets
of proof!
Pip R. Lagenta
[snip]
>
>This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific fact.
>Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
What? Are you saying that *YOU* contradicted this?
>
--
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
BRAINIAC
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:22:02 -0400, BRAINIAC wrote
> (in article
J.J. and Ernest, I asked for citations, not comments that are similar
to the one that I questioned.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Bodega
<michael...@worldnet.att.net>:
I'd go for "ignorant arrogant asshole", but YMMV...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Apocalypse"
<Apoca...@NoSpam.Com>:
>It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
>scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where we
>came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
>
>This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific fact.
>Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
And anyone who conflates evolution (the multiply-observed
fact) with the Theory of Evolution (the proposed explanation
of that multiply-observed fact) is an idiot. But that was
obvious from the *rest* of your post.
Paul J Gans
>It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
>scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where we
>came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
>This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific fact.
>Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
Then you believe that every species alive today has been alive
forever, right?
One might think that such a statement needs some evidence to
back it up, such as human remains mixed with dinosaur remains.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> As he is on square one, as you observed, logically he will just
> reassert his original position.
Very likely so indeed. Of course it's not _impossible_ that it might
actually learn... but I'm not holding my breath ;)
Ray Martinez
> It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
> scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where we
> came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
>
I would have to agree.
My personal research that is on-going for the past two, going on three
years now, has shown me that the evidence does not support the claims:
therefore, there is no evidence that evolution of any increment or at
any rate has ever occurred or has occurred on this planet. I used to
accept microevolution, but as I just explained the evidence does not
support the claim. Evolution is an idea that presupposes Materialism
to be true, the same is Atheist ideology. Once the idea is accepted it
is not subject to falsification; evidence and data are merely
explained to support the idea or supposition of evolution no matter
what. Evolution is Atheist philosophy packaged as science. That is the
objective truth of the matter.
> This [....] statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific fact.
> Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
>
> (A)
Agreed.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Apr 24, 9:50 pm, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
>
> > It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
> > scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where we
> > came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
>
> I would have to agree.
>
Except for Creationism.
I have now corrected a mistake.
> My personal research that is on-going for the past two, going on three
> years now, has shown me that the evidence does not support the claims:
> therefore, there is no evidence that evolution of any increment or at
> any rate has ever occurred or has occurred on this planet. I used to
> accept microevolution, but as I just explained the evidence does not
> support the claim. Evolution is an idea that presupposes Materialism
> to be true, the same is Atheist ideology. Once the idea is accepted it
> is not subject to falsification; evidence and data are merely
> explained to support the idea or supposition of evolution no matter
> what. Evolution is Atheist philosophy packaged as science. That is the
> objective truth of the matter.
>
> > This [....] statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific fact.
> > Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
>
> > (A)
>
> Agreed.
>
> Ray
Ray
Free Lunch
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<c11cb3f4-b718-405b...@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>:
>On Apr 24, 9:50 pm, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
>> It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
>> scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where we
>> came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
>>
>
>I would have to agree.
>
>My personal research that is on-going for the past two, going on three
>years now, has shown me that the evidence does not support the claims:
>therefore, there is no evidence that evolution of any increment or at
>any rate has ever occurred or has occurred on this planet.
You clearly have not done any scientific research or understood any of
the scientific discoveries.
> I used to
>accept microevolution, but as I just explained the evidence does not
>support the claim.
It does, but you cheerfully lie about that.
>Evolution is an idea that presupposes Materialism
>to be true, the same is Atheist ideology. Once the idea is accepted it
>is not subject to falsification; evidence and data are merely
>explained to support the idea or supposition of evolution no matter
>what. Evolution is Atheist philosophy packaged as science. That is the
>objective truth of the matter.
By all objective evidence, you are a liar.
Ron O
>
> - Show quoted text -
Get just about any college physics or physical chem book, and look it
up yourself. It happened almost a century ago and it isn't big news.
Ron Okimoto
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c11cb3f4-b718-405b...@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 24, 9:50 pm, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
>> It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
>> scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where
>> we
>> came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
>>
>
> I would have to agree.
But you'd be wrong.
>
> My personal research that is on-going for the past two, going on three
> years now, has shown me that the evidence does not support the claims:
Ray, your "research" has not provided you with any actual knowledge of the
process of evolution, or it's mechanism. Why should anyone accept your
claims?
> therefore, there is no evidence that evolution of any increment or at
> any rate has ever occurred or has occurred on this planet.
Then, why is there so much evidence that it has?
> I used to
> accept microevolution, but as I just explained the evidence does not
> support the claim.
You have asserted this, but you haven't shown you even know how to define
the term "microevolution". You also seem to ignore the large volume of
evidence that supports evolutionary change in populations.
> Evolution is an idea that presupposes Materialism
> to be true, the same is Atheist ideology.
No, evolution does not "presuppose" Materialism. It's a scientific theory,
and as such, uses methodological natualism, not hard Materialism.
Evolution, like any other science presumes that what can be seen and
experienced reflects reality. It presumes that a trickster god isn't
messing around with events. It presumes that evidence means something.
That's not atheist ideology, and can be used by any religious position.
> Once the idea is accepted it
> is not subject to falsification; evidence and data are merely
> explained to support the idea or supposition of evolution no matter
> what.
Of course, that's not how science works. Evolution is open to
falsification, if there were any evidence that falsifies the concept. If
it were to be shown that populations did not vary, then evolution would be
falsifed. If it could be shown that traits are not inheritied, or that
traits were random, that would falsify evolution.
> Evolution is Atheist philosophy packaged as science. That is the
> objective truth of the matter.
No matter how often you make that statement, it's still false. There is no
objective truth in your claim.
>
>> This [....] statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific
>> fact.
>> Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
>>
>> (A)
>
> Agreed.
And you are wrong, yet again. Seems to be a pattern.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Apr 25, 4:24 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 24, 9:50 pm, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
>>
>> > It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
>> > scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about
>> > where we
>> > came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
>>
>> I would have to agree.
>>
>
> Except for Creationism.
>
> I have now corrected a mistake.
No, you have just made another mistake. There is no scientific evidence
to support creationism.
DJT
Paul J Gans
<grin> The reality went the other way. Thermo didn't change a
bit since there is no chemical or ordinary physical way to convert
mass into energy in any measurable amount.
What was recognized was that mass was equivalent to energy. But
since both mass and energy were known to be conserved, the major
effect was that two conservation laws got collapsed into one.
Mike Painter
Proof is something that mathematicians enjoy. Science relies on theory, not
proof.
As soon as someone starts demanding proof you have solid evidence that he or
she probably can't define a theory and certainly does not understand the
concept.
Harry K
Still staring at that blank page that begins your paper? With all
that intense research, you must have at leat _some_ notes. Care to
post a few of them?
Harry K
hersheyh
> It is at *best* a theory.
In science, an explanation of observations that meets the criteria of
being a "theory" is one that must be testable, make testable
predictions or expectations, *and* consistently be in agreement with
the observations that those tests entail. A "theory" is a grander
explanation than merely an explanation consistent with a single
hypothesis testing.
Merely by proposing the above sentence, which uses a non-scientific
definition of "theory" that has been known to be bogus for decades,
and by your failure to interact beyond this post by actually
intelligently (or even dim-wittedly, which is probably the best you
can do) responding to the critiques that followed, I hypothesize that
you are nothing but an agent provocateur, a hit-and-run cretinist.
Such are even lower forms of cretinist than the persistently deluded
that at least try to argue their position. Of course, the predicted
test of this hypothesis (that you will continue to fail to respond to
others) will never be certain and could easily be falsified.
> The truth is that there is no conclusive
> scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where we
> came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
Well, since theory generation requires both the gathering of empirical
rather than revealed evidence, a chain of logical reasoning based on
non-supernatural assumptions and knowledge of the many, many, examples
of hypothesis testing, nearly all of which have to be consistent with
the final theory for that theory to be generally accepted, I can
certainly see why you would not consider anything that you disagree
with a 'fact', even if it were shoved up yer...
>
> This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific fact.
> Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
Isn't it grand to be so open to evidence that you know, without even
having a shred of empirical support for your proposition, that honest
scientists who have done honest science for generations are wrong and
part of a grand atheist conspiracy because they have collectively come
to conclusions you disagree with! Such humility! You must be a real
polymath genius to realize where all these hard-working scientists
over many generations, scientists of many faiths and no faith,
scientists of many countries, have gone so badly wrong. Perhaps it is
that *ALL* science is an atheistic conspiracy and we should go back to
the pre-scientific times when people *knew* what mattered, faith and
ignorance (and short, nasty, and brutish lives).
>
> (A)
SeppoP
It *could* be Elijahovah on meds, at least they're both posting from
RoadRunner. (Elijahovah from 69.76.47.182 and Apocalypse from 69.76.133.65).
-sp
noshellswill
> On Apr 24, 9:50 pm, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
>> It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
>> scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where we
>> came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
>>
>
> I would have to agree.
>
<clip>
Evolution is an idea that presupposes Materialism
> to be true, the same is Atheist ideology.
<clip>
>
>> This [....] statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific fact.
>> Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
>>
>> (A)
>
> Agreed.
>
> Ray
Ray:
Goodness gracious ... identifying "materialism" with atheism would have
seemed silly to both Aristotle and St. Thomas. It seems beyond
comprehension in the age of Higgs bosons. So Why do YOU need to do that ?
As the for developmental biology/fossil data, since no TOE currently
exists we have no quantitative idea what datum could mean or what it
actually implies.
Go back to the lab bench. Study hard.
nss
******
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>On Apr 24, 9:50 pm, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
>> It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
>> scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where we
>> came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
>I would have to agree.
Well, *there's* a shocker...
"Ray rejects overwhelming evidence of evolution. Film at
eleven."
>My personal research that is on-going for the past two, going on three
>years now, has shown me that the evidence does not support the claims:
Would one of those claims be that a nebulous "paper"
purporting to refute Darwin exists? If so I'd have to agree;
there's no evidence supporting this claim.
<snip>
Bob Casanova
>On Apr 25, 4:24 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 24, 9:50 pm, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
>> > It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
>> > scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where we
>> > came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
>> I would have to agree.
>Except for Creationism.
>I have now corrected a mistake.
Stating a falsehood is known as "correcting a mistake" in
RayLand? That explains a good bit...
LT
> It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
> scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where we
> came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
>
> Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
>
> (A)
Another post-and-run fucktard. Thanks for the input.
LT
The Enigmatic One
says...
>
>
>It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
>scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where we
>came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
>
>This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific fact.
>Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
Wow.
You're fucking dumb!
-Tim
hersheyh
> On Apr 25, 12:50 am, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
>
> > It is at *best* a theory.
>
> In science, an explanation of observations that meets the criteria of
> being a "theory" is one that must be testable, make testable
> predictions or expectations, *and* consistently be in agreement with
> the observations that those tests entail. A "theory" is a grander
> explanation than merely an explanation consistent with a single
> hypothesis testing.
>
> Merely by proposing the above sentence, which uses a non-scientific
> definition of "theory" that has been known to be bogus for decades,
> and by your failure to interact beyond this post by actually
> intelligently (or even dim-wittedly, which is probably the best you
> can do) responding to the critiques that followed, I hypothesize that
> you are nothing but an agent provocateur, a hit-and-run cretinist.
> Such are even lower forms of cretinist than the persistently deluded
> that at least try to argue their position. Of course, the predicted
> test of this hypothesis (that you will continue to fail to respond to
> others) will never be certain and could easily be falsified.
One day of the above hypothesis remaining consistent with the
evidence.
Cory Albrecht
One question, Mr. (Ms.?) Enigmatic One. Do you ever post anything other
than variants on "You're fucking dumb"?
The Enigmatic One
says...
>One question, Mr. (Ms.?) Enigmatic One. Do you ever post anything other
>than variants on "You're fucking dumb"?
>
Sure. But as almost everyone is way too polite to come up with the proper
response for utter idiots like, say, Apocalypse, I feel that I really must take
it upon myself to do so.
-Tim
Geoff
> On Apr 24, 10:50 pm, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
>> It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
>> scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about
>> where we came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
>>
>> This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific
>> fact. Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
>>
>
> That evolution occurs is an observed fact. We see it, we use it, we
> even suffer from it. This has been true for thousands of years.
> We've bred plants and animals (that's evolution). We've been attacked
> by microorganisms and many of us have died from them. Those that
> survived went on to produce offspring with more immunity to those
> organisms than the population before them. That is evolution. It's
> been observed so many times, by so many people, in so many ways, that
> it occurs it's a fact.
>
> The descriptions of how it occurs, what actually happens when it
> occurs, why it occurs, and when it has occurred, are theories.
> Theories are what you get when you obtain substantial evidence in
> support of hypotheses. Such hypotheses can never become more than
> "theories" because that's the highest level achievable in modern
> science. The theory of Special Relativity is extremely well proven,
> used daily in everything from accelerators to GPS satellites. Yet it
> remains a theory - a description or model of observed reality.
I have an hypothesis that there are people that have so much invested in
their particular mythology that it is impossible to comprehend the above
cogent explanation. I will be looking for observations to conform the model.
Geoff
I was hoping you were going to write, "You're fucking dumb!"
--
Geoff O'Furman
Head Coach, Varsity Hockey
University of Ediacara
AA #22??
Geoff
> On Apr 24, 9:50 pm, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
>> It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
>> scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about
>> where we came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
>>
>
> I would have to agree.
>
> My personal research that is on-going for the past two, going on three
(snip bullshit)
Wasting your time on the Internet at Creationist websites does not
constitute research.
GIGO
dhacat
(in article <6gsee5...@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net>):
That's what happens when you shop at the discount vocabulary store.
Bob T.
> In article <6gsee5x2s....@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net>, coryalbre...@hotmail.com
> says...
>
> >One question, Mr. (Ms.?) Enigmatic One. Do you ever post anything other
> >than variants on "You're fucking dumb"?
>
> Sure. But as almost everyone is way too polite to come up with the proper
> response for utter idiots like, say, Apocalypse, I feel that I really must take
> it upon myself to do so.
I, for one, would miss you if you stopped posting.
- Bob T.
>
> -Tim
Paul J Gans
Probably not. But it is only a variation on some of the regulars
who treat every non-expert question as if it is being asked by
a sneaky creationist.
Probably 70% of the questions *are* being asked by sneaky creationists.
But being nasty isn't the way to win hearts and minds. I'm not a
sneaky creationist and I know it *annoys* me.
Paul J Gans
Why? Are you winning friends for evolution that way?
You do understand that creationist use emotion to fight evolution.
Does that convince you? Why do you think that using emotion back
at creationists will win them over?
All it does is brand you another rude pig for evolution.
We don't need that.
Cory Albrecht
> The Enigmatic One wrote:
>> In article <6gsee5...@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net>,
>> coryal...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>>> One question, Mr. (Ms.?) Enigmatic One. Do you ever post anything
>>> other than variants on "You're fucking dumb"?
>>>
>> Sure. But as almost everyone is way too polite to come up with the
>> proper response for utter idiots like, say, Apocalypse, I feel that I
>> really must take it upon myself to do so.
>
> I was hoping you were going to write, "You're fucking dumb!"
So was I. Damn. :-( :-)
But since I read talk.origins every day hoping to meet a creationist who
admits when s/he is wrong, is willing to learn, doesn't reuse that same
strawmen over again after they have been debunked to their face and
doesn't lie as a matter of course,... well, I guess you could say that I
am used to disappointment.
Apocalypse
"Lee Jay" <ljfi...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:0d75799d-c743-4252...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 24, 10:50 pm, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
>> It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
>> scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where
>> we
>> came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
>>
>> This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific fact.
>> Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
>>
>
> That evolution occurs is an observed fact.
This is a lie. Evolution of species has never been observed.
(A)
Apocalypse
"Shane" <rema...@Netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1uokk5hy3lo6z.1...@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:50:08 -0500, Apocalypse wrote:
>
>> It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
>> scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where
>> we
>> came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
>>
>> This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific fact.
>> Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
>
>Science is not in
> the business of saying this theory, which explains this fact, is set in
> stone and is impossible to refute.
While that statement does put science in to its proper place that is not
what one observes in the world. In the area of origins what one observes is
the propagation of some myth that science has long since proven evolution
and origins. This is not true.
Science is only a process to observe, weigh and measure. It has proven many
facts but has proven nothing substantive as far as origins.
The more we know (scientifically), the more we realize we just don't know.
(A)
Matchstick
Apoca...@NoSpam.Com says...
So do you believe that every paper referenced here has been faked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Or do you have your own unique definition of Speciation ?
--
Contact Address matchstick a t oofg d o t com
"The wages of sin are death... but the hours are good and the perks are
fantastic."
Ernest Major
<Apoca...@NoSpam.Com> writes
evolution of species - did you intend a claim that the evolution of a
new species has not been observed in historical time?
Regardless of whether you are referring to intraspecific evolution or
the formation of new species, you ignorance of observations of both does
not mean that that neither is an observed fact. By common Christian and
Jewish exegesis the commandment against bearing false witness extends to
reckless as well as malicious defamation; by issuing an accusation of
lieing you have broken that commandment.
Intraspecific evolution is commonly observed. For example industrial
melanism is moths, changes to beak size in Galapagos finches, etc.
Observations of speciation in historical time include Cardamine
schultzii, Senecio cambrica, Spartina anglica, Tragopogon micellus,
Tragopogon mirus, Aesculus carnea, Digitalis mertonesis, Primula
kewensis, and Triticosecale rimpaui. There have been several other cases
where species have been experimentally replicated from their ancestors,
and others were new species have been deliberately produced in the
laboratory. I recently came across another example of the last - Solanum
indianense.
--
alias Ernest Major
Bob T.
>
> This is a lie. Evolution of species has never been observed.
You puncuated that incorrectly. You meant to say:
"This is a lie: 'Evolution of species has never been observed.'"
- Bob T.
>
> (A)
hersheyh
> "Shane" <remar...@Netscape.net> wrote in message
Science, alas for you, is an epistomology or way of knowing and not
simply a process to observe, weigh, and measure. Science does not
"prove" anything. It generates and tests *testable* models and
explanations against *observable* material reality to determine if the
explanations are "consistent with" the tests. Specifically, science
*limits* itself to understanding how the material world works by means
of materially observable phenomena. The process involves hypothesis
testing (testing specific expectations) and theory testing
(determining whether the results of hypothesis testing are "consistent
with" current theory).
The more we know scientifically, the better (the more consistent with
observable reality) are the models to observable reality. Ignorance
is not typically an outcome of the scientific method even when it
overthrows current theory.
The facts are that observable reality is overwhelmingly consistent
with the ideas that the current forms of life arose by the branching
historical process of species change we call 'evolution'. No other
*testable* model (ID is a non-testable model that can be made
consistent with any information since it makes no specific testable
predictions).
Now, I made a *testable* prediction that you would not reply and
engage in a dialog where you would try to support your position. That
hypothesis has now been partly falsified. [You responded, but merely
made more evidenceless assertions.] As a scientist, I simply accept
that, and now make a further hypothesis modifiying the original one.
Since your response was nothing but an unsupported repeat of your
original assertions, I now make a further hypothesis that you are
incapable of presenting an actual scientific argument, with actual
evidence that is "inconsistent with" the tests that have led
scientists to the 'evolution model'. [And, no, it does not require
the actual observation of speciation in real time, even though that
has been observed. It only requires testable hypotheses such as that
there be a discernible pattern of fossils in the geologic layers and
consistent pattern of neutral change in sequence that would be
unlikely to be due to chance.]
Apocalypse
"hersheyh" <hers...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e15021ea-75b4-4153...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
An example of evolution of species from fossil record would be a nice start.
Note: The reason I narrowed to *evolution of species* is that I had
forgotten there are people who equate adaptation and evolution.
(A)
TomS
<4815dffc$0$3365$4c36...@roadrunner.com>, Apocalypse stated..."
From the "Answers In Genesis" web page "Arguments we
think creationists should NOT use":
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp>
"“No new species have been produced.”
"This is not true—new species have been observed to form. In
fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation
model."
Or check the web for references to "baramin" or "created
kind".
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Howard admitted, in the first paragraph, that Darwinian "Science does
not 'prove' anything."
But evolutionists constantly bombard us with the strong statement that
evolution is an undisputed fact.
What is proven is that evolutionists contradict themselves and are not
sure about anything; except their science does not prove anything and
that evolution is a fact.
Ray
Apocalypse
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b3f59e4-45e5-4101...@b9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Wow I am not alone! Thanks Ray.
This is exactly and exclusively my point. I am no scientist but
understanding this only requires common sense (aka: street smarts). It is
my opinion based on all the facts (I am aware of), there is no conclusive
scientific evidence to support evolution of species as fact (nor any other
theory trying to explain the diversity of life in scientific terms). What
angers me is that this vital information is footnoted, trivialized or hidden
from the general public. Many are led as sheep to believe it must be true.
Furthermore, anyone who questions the validity of this theory based on the
exact same scientific evidence purported to confirm it is ridiculed and
often told the only way to refute evolution of species is to offer an
alternate theory...which is absurd.
Evolution of species does not appear to be possible and yet it is shoved
down peoples throats as if it were fact. Almost laughable. It would appear
there is some sort of an agenda at work here (or) that accepting evolution
of species as fact is required for some greater belief system I do not
understand.
(A)
Ernest Major
<Apoca...@NoSpam.Com> writes
cambrica, Senecio eboracensis, Mimulus cupriphilus, Tragopogon mirus,
Tragopogon micellus, Cardamine schultzii, Aesculus carnea, Digitalis
mertonensis and Primula kewensis? How do you explain experimental
recreation of species such as Ararabidopsis sueica, Galeopsis tetrahit,
Brassica carinata, Brassica napus, Brassica juncea, Dactylis glomerata,
Madia citrigracilis, Nicotiana tabacum and Triticum aestivum? How do you
explain the laboratory created species such as the various
Raphanobrassicas and Triticosecales, Brassica napocampestris, Brassica
naponigra, Elytricum fertile and Solanum indianense?
--
alias Ernest Major
Bob T.
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Laughingstocks of a feather flock together.
>
> This is exactly and exclusively my point. I am no scientist but
> understanding this only requires common sense (aka: street smarts).
Why do you think that "street smarts" will teach you anything about
science? "Common sense" tells us that the Earth is flat and
stationery, and the Sun goes around the Earth.
> It is my opinion based on all the facts (I am aware of), there is no conclusive
> scientific evidence to support evolution of species as fact (nor any other
> theory trying to explain the diversity of life in scientific terms).
That is because you are ignorant of science.
> What angers me is that this vital information is footnoted, trivialized or hidden
> from the general public. Many are led as sheep to believe it must be true.
> Furthermore, anyone who questions the validity of this theory based on the
> exact same scientific evidence purported to confirm it is ridiculed and
> often told the only way to refute evolution of species is to offer an
> alternate theory...which is absurd.
So your theory is "I don't know what happend, but it sure wasn't that
goldurned evolution stuff!". Brilliant!
>
> Evolution of species does not appear to be possible and yet it is shoved
> down peoples throats as if it were fact.
> Almost laughable.
Evolution of species has been observed in the wild and in the
laboratory. It is your disbelief that is "almost laughable."
> It would appear there is some sort of an agenda at work here (or) that accepting evolution
> of species as fact is required for some greater belief system I do not
> understand.
The "greater belief system you do not understand" is called "rational
thought". You should try it sometime.
- Bob T.
Mark VandeWettering
No, he stated that proofs are not part of science of _any_ kind.
> But evolutionists constantly bombard us with the strong statement that
> evolution is an undisputed fact.
Evolution is a fact. It would be hard to label it undisputed, since
so many silly creationists do dispute it, but it remains a fact.
>
> What is proven is that evolutionists contradict themselves and are not
> sure about anything;
The problem with the world is that the wise are skeptical, and the fools
are sure.
> except their science does not prove anything and that evolution is a fact.
But science doesn't prove anything. And evolution is a fact.
Mark
>
> Ray
>
>
Mark VandeWettering
Gasp! You're kidding me! You sure had us fooled!
> but understanding this only requires common sense (aka: street smarts).
The problem with common sense is that it is far less prevalent than the
people who espouse its virtues would actually lead you to believe.
> It is my opinion based on all the facts (I am aware of), there is no
> conclusive scientific evidence to support evolution of species as
> fact (nor any other theory trying to explain the diversity of life in
> scientific terms).
Yes, you are ignorant. Luckily, the world is not constrained by what
you understand or know.
> What angers me is that this vital information is footnoted,
> trivialized or hidden from the general public. Many are led as sheep
> to believe it must be true. Furthermore, anyone who questions the
> validity of this theory based on the exact same scientific evidence
> purported to confirm it is ridiculed and often told the only way to
> refute evolution of species is to offer an alternate theory...which is
> absurd.
Such criticisms are nearly always lodged by people exactly like yourself:
who are deluded by feelings of adequacy.
> Evolution of species does not appear to be possible and yet it is shoved
> down peoples throats as if it were fact. Almost laughable. It would appear
> there is some sort of an agenda at work here (or) that accepting evolution
> of species as fact is required for some greater belief system I do not
> understand.
>
> (A)
Given that you seem to understand very little, it's in good company.
Mark
Geoff
That is ignorance. Regardless, you moved the goalposts. Evolution is a fact,
regardless if speciation has been observed or not.
Geoff
> Intraspecific evolution is commonly observed. For example industrial
> melanism is moths, changes to beak size in Galapagos finches, etc.
Of course, like any creationist imbecile, he won't be satisfied until a dog
gives birth to a cat.
Geoff
Damn...you are fucking thick aren't you? Shane explained everything nicely
for you and it went right over your head.
Geoff
> Howard admitted, in the first paragraph, that Darwinian "Science does
> not 'prove' anything."
True.
> But evolutionists constantly bombard us with the strong statement that
> evolution is an undisputed fact.
True.
> What is proven is that evolutionists contradict themselves and are not
> sure about anything; except their science does not prove anything and
> that evolution is a fact.
False.
You're a moron.
True.
Geoff
> Wow I am not alone! Thanks Ray.
No wonder you never noticed. The lights are off.
> This is exactly and exclusively my point. I am no scientist but
> understanding this only requires common sense (aka: street smarts).
This should be rich.
> It is my opinion based on all the facts (I am aware of), there is no
> conclusive scientific evidence to support evolution of species as
> fact (nor any other theory trying to explain the diversity of life in
> scientific terms).
Your opinion means so little to anyone seeing as it is based on incomplete
evidence.
> What angers me is that this vital information is
> footnoted, trivialized or hidden from the general public. Many are
> led as sheep to believe it must be true. Furthermore, anyone who
> questions the validity of this theory based on the exact same
> scientific evidence purported to confirm it is ridiculed and often
> told the only way to refute evolution of species is to offer an
> alternate theory...which is absurd.
That would be absurd if it were true.
> Evolution of species does not appear to be possible and yet it is
> shoved down peoples throats as if it were fact.
It is fact. You don't have to believe it. Just don't try and shove your
mythology down our throats as science.
> Almost laughable. It would appear there is some sort of an agenda at work
> here (or)
> that accepting evolution of species as fact is required for some
> greater belief system I do not understand.
"Does not appear", "would appear", "my opinion", "common sense". Move along,
son.
Woland
> "hersheyh" <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Voila:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b3f59e4-45e5-4101...@b9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> Howard admitted, in the first paragraph, that Darwinian "Science does
> not 'prove' anything."
What he said was that science doesn't prove anything. Howard makes no
distinction between "Darwinian" science and any other type of science. You
are trying to put words in Howard's mouth, which is dishonest.
>
> But evolutionists constantly bombard us with the strong statement that
> evolution is an undisputed fact.
Evolution is a fact. It's been directly observed.
>
> What is proven is that evolutionists contradict themselves and are not
> sure about anything; except their science does not prove anything and
> that evolution is a fact.
What contradiction do you see here, Ray? Evolution is a fact, as much a
fact that the Earth is round, or that the sky is blue. Science, however
does not "prove" anything. It provides the best available answer, and is
always provisional, depending on the latest data. You need to understand
the difference between a fact, and the explanation for that fact.
DJT
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Apocalypse"
<Apoca...@NoSpam.Com>:
What a shame that your ignorance has led you to state a
falsehood.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Matchstick
<match...@deadspam.com>:
>In article <4815dffc$0$3365$4c36...@roadrunner.com>,
>Apoca...@NoSpam.Com says...
>>
>> "Lee Jay" <ljfi...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:0d75799d-c743-4252...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Apr 24, 10:50 pm, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
>> >> It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
>> >> scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where
>> >> we
>> >> came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
>> >>
>> >> This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific fact.
>> >> Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
>> >>
>> >> (A)
>> >
>> > That evolution occurs is an observed fact.
>>
>> This is a lie. Evolution of species has never been observed.
>>
>> (A)
>
>So do you believe that every paper referenced here has been faked:
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
>
>Or do you have your own unique definition of Speciation ?
"What science hasn't observed" would do nicely...it fits so
many diverse Creationist claims.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
Your claim that "evolution" (the observations in nature) is
the same thing as the "theory of evolution" (the proposed
explanation of those observations), after being told
repeatedly of the difference, sometimes in language so
simple that even such a scientific illiterate as yourself
cannot help but understand it, shows that you are, indeed,
simply a liar.
Lee Jay
> "Lee Jay" <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote in message
First, that's "moving the goal posts" as that was not your initial
claim. Second, speciation has been observed, as the others have
pointed out.
Lee Jay
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Apocalypse"
<Apoca...@NoSpam.Com>:
Do "street smarts" tell you why the sun can continue to
provide energy for billions of years? Do "street smarts"
tell you how your computer works (the circuitry, not the
"on" switch and mouse buttons)? Not a chance; street smarts
can tell you how to act in the 'hood, but provide no help
whatsoever when the subject is technical and requires more
than a 6th-grade education.
Apparently "street smarts" are also incapable of
distinguishing an observed fact (speciation, in the lab and
in nature) from the proposed explanation of that observed
fact, which you mistakenly call "evolution".
> It is
>my opinion based on all the facts (I am aware of), there is no conclusive
>scientific evidence to support evolution of species as fact (nor any other
>theory trying to explain the diversity of life in scientific terms).
How fortunate, then, for the increase of knowledge (and for
the sanity of those who actually observed the speciations
you mistakenly claim never took place) that your ignorance
isn't the governing factor in science.
<snip>
gregwrld
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Your denial is unsupported by evidence.
Please address Ernest Major's list, item
by item or go way.
gregwrld
Lee Jay
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:48:47 +0100, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Matchstick
>
>
>
> >In article <4815dffc$0$3365$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
> >Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com says...
>
> >> "Lee Jay" <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote in message
> >>news:0d75799d-c743-4252...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Apr 24, 10:50 pm, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
> >> >> It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
> >> >> scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where
> >> >> we
> >> >> came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
>
> >> >> This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific fact.
> >> >> Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
>
> >> >> (A)
>
> >> > That evolution occurs is an observed fact.
>
> >> This is a lie. Evolution of species has never been observed.
>
> >> (A)
>
> >So do you believe that every paper referenced here has been faked:
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
>
> >Or do you have your own unique definition of Speciation ?
>
> "What science hasn't observed" would do nicely...it fits so
> many diverse Creationist claims.
A Salmon giving birth to a Human would also do nicely.
Lee Jay
hersheyh
>
> An example of evolution of species from fossil record would be a nice start.
This requires the ability to distinguish "species" *solely* by relying
on fossilizable parts. If you look at animals or plants of today, you
will find that, based on the fossilizable parts, there are some
*clearly* different species (using the biological species definition
of reproductive isolation) from today that would be indistinguishable
as different species based *solely* on fossilizable parts. Conversely
there are species today that vary phenotypically over their range
enough so that if one only had fossilizable information from each
extreme, one might label the two as different species. Even worse,
fossils differ over time *even* in organisms we might consider the
same 'species' if they had appeared at the same time. Thus fossils of
ancient Homo sapiens differ from fossils of modern H. sapiens.
Moreover, even in *modern* living organisms there is sometimes
different degrees of species isolation and not an absolute dichotomy.
That is species-species hybridization occurs. Ring species exist.
[Incidentally, that occasional lack of complete speciation is a
predicted and predictable consequence of an evolutionary process. It
is not a predicted consequence of a model of instantaneous poofing of
modern completely isolated species, unless one posits that the magical
poofer sometimes wanted to allow interspecies hybrids for some
unspecified reason.] What I am trying to get at is that there is a
problem of false positives and false negatives for the precise
question you asked *because* there is no stasis in the fossil record
nor in living organisms. To answer the question you asked would
require a clear definition of what constitutes a change in species
using only fossilizable evidence. It would also require one to look
for the most complete fossil record available and not just any old
group of organisms. One can hardly hope to answer that question for
jellyfish or worms since fossils of these are too sparse to answer the
question. I would suggest that if you looked at foramniferan fossils,
you would find examples that would satisfy most people that the fossil
record, when it is good enough, is "consistent with" the idea of
speciation over time.
To be blunt, the question you asked is flawed because of unspecified
terms (species), a requirement for absolutely complete data, and an
inability to deal with false positives and false negatives that, by
examining modern organisms, would be sure to arise.
But there is an hypothesis testing way to ask if the fossil record we
do have is "consistent with" the model of evolutionary change (common
descent) in addition to the fact that speciation has been observed in
modern times. Here is where the ability to actually *reason* is
needed. The first step is to realize that the *pattern* of fossils in
the fossil record (geological column) is non-random and that the
pattern does not fit the expectations of a world-wide flood, or
magical poofing of all species in a single week. That is, fossil A is
restricted to a particular set of layers and fossil B is restricted to
a particular set of layers *and* there is an ordered pattern between
morphologically related fossils to the extent that the relevant
fossils exist and have been found. The only magical poofing
explanation that is just as consistent with the fossil record as
evolutionary change in species (branching common descent) is one that
involves magical poofing of species closely related to pre-existing
species at many different times and places over many more than 6000
years.
> Note: The reason I narrowed to *evolution of species* is that I had
> forgotten there are people who equate adaptation and evolution.
What you call adaptation probably also involves mutation and
selection, just like speciation. Unless, of course, you are one of
the creationists who think
>
> (A)
hersheyh
Of course you are not alone. Every ignorant member of any church led
by fundamentalist preacher Billy Bob Gene agrees with you.
> This is exactly and exclusively my point. I am no scientist
Wow! I never would have guessed that....NOT.
> but
> understanding this only requires common sense (aka: street smarts). It is
> my opinion based on all the facts (I am aware of),
What facts are you aware of? You seem to be aware that fossils
exist, but are you aware of the pattern of distribution of these
fossils in geological strata? It is the pattern that is "consistent
with" evolution (common descent) and "inconsistent with" a literal
reading of Genesis (without invoking further miracles).
> there is no conclusive
> scientific evidence to support evolution of species as fact (nor any other
> theory trying to explain the diversity of life in scientific terms). What
> angers me is that this vital information is footnoted, trivialized or hidden
> from the general public. Many are led as sheep to believe it must be true.
> Furthermore, anyone who questions the validity of this theory based on the
> exact same scientific evidence purported to confirm it is ridiculed and
> often told the only way to refute evolution of species is to offer an
> alternate theory...which is absurd.
>
> Evolution of species does not appear to be possible
On exactly what do you base this proposed impossiblity?
Tiny Bulcher
> [snip]
> What you call adaptation probably also involves mutation and
> selection, just like speciation. Unless, of course, you are one of
> the creationists who think
Well, there aren't many of those, and that /is/ a fact.
RAM
Why street smarts and common sense. Science be damned. It's a waste
of time. Besides, if God wanted him to learn about evolution, God
would have implanted it in his soul since it is so damned hard to
learn. It's so much easier to spout creationist ignorance than to
read and understand a book on Evolution by Carl Zimmer.
Apocalyptic ignorance is his name and willful stupidity is his game.
RAM
Cory Albrecht
Ray, have you ever heard the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" so
commonly used in the courts? In other words, while something may not be
100% proven there is so much evidence X having murdered Y that no
reasonable person would believe otherwise so for all practical purposes
that murder becomes an undisputed fact
That is the type of proof that science offers.
I wonder how many times this has been pointed out to you and that you
have ignored the explanation?
Ray Martinez
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Right, the evidence does not support evolution; but the observation of
design and organized complexity seen in nature as a whole and in each
individual organism testifies to Divine causation: Creationism-Design
is true.
> What
> angers me is that this vital information is footnoted, trivialized or hidden
> from the general public.
It's the way evolutionists operate. They are not in the business of
science, but Atheism.
> Many are led as sheep to believe it must be true.
Accurate way of describing the ordinary evolutionist and many of their
run-of-the-mill "scientists." Since the Biblical explanation is not an
option for Atheism, what choice do they have? Evolution is a one horse
race.
> Furthermore, anyone who questions the validity of this theory based on the
> exact same scientific evidence purported to confirm it is ridiculed and
> often told the only way to refute evolution of species is to offer an
> alternate theory...which is absurd.
>
Agreed.
We have also agreed that the evidence does not support the claims.
This means evolutionists must accept and act like the evidence does
because the Biblical explanation is not an option.
> Evolution of species does not appear to be possible and yet it is shoved
> down peoples throats as if it were fact. Almost laughable. It would appear
> there is some sort of an agenda at work here (or) that accepting evolution
> of species as fact is required for some greater belief system I do not
> understand.
>
> (A)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Agreed: evolution is impossible. It is ***made*** possible because the
Bible and its God are hated.
Ray
Ye Old One
In general, science doesn't.
>
>But evolutionists constantly bombard us with the strong statement that
>evolution is an undisputed fact.
Well that is true. Evolution is a fact. The ToE is our current best
model for how it works.
>
>What is proven is that evolutionists contradict themselves and are not
>sure about anything; except their science does not prove anything and
>that evolution is a fact.
What is proven, beyond reasonable doubt, is that you do not understand
science, nor the correct use of the English language.
>
>Ray
>
--
Bob.
Dana Tweedy
> On Apr 28, 9:53 am, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
>> This is exactly and exclusively my point. I am no scientist but
>> understanding this only requires common sense (aka: street smarts). It is
>> my opinion based on all the facts (I am aware of), there is no conclusive
>> scientific evidence to support evolution of species as fact (nor any
>> other
>> theory trying to explain the diversity of life in scientific terms).
>
> Right, the evidence does not support evolution;
The evidence does support evolution, your denial of the evidence only shows
you won't accept the truth.
> but the observation of
> design and organized complexity seen in nature as a whole and in each
> individual organism testifies to Divine causation: Creationism-Design
> is true.
Except that no one has observed any "divine causation" producing any kind of
design. The appearance of design, and the organized complexity of life is
explained by natural processes, so appeal to a supernatural being is
unnecessary. Creationism is false, and always has been.
>
>> What
>> angers me is that this vital information is footnoted, trivialized or
>> hidden
>> from the general public.
>
> It's the way evolutionists operate. They are not in the business of
> science, but Atheism.
Which is not true. There are many persons, such as myself who aren't
atheists, but are interested in science. Even those who are atheists are
doing science, not promoting atheism.
>
>> Many are led as sheep to believe it must be true.
>
> Accurate way of describing the ordinary evolutionist and many of their
> run-of-the-mill "scientists."
Actually, it's a good description of the average creationist. Science is
supported by the evidence, not belief in the authority of others.
> Since the Biblical explanation is not an
> option for Atheism, what choice do they have? Evolution is a one horse
> race.
There are more potential explanations than the "Biblical" one. What
atheists believe is irrelevant as far as science is concerned. In any
case, evolution is the only scientific theory that best explains the
evidence concerning biological diversity. Creationists have failed to
provide a "horse" for the race, that's not the fault of scientists.
>
>> Furthermore, anyone who questions the validity of this theory based on
>> the
>> exact same scientific evidence purported to confirm it is ridiculed and
>> often told the only way to refute evolution of species is to offer an
>> alternate theory...which is absurd.
>>
>
> Agreed.
Why is that absurd? If you wish to overturn the present theory, you need
to come up with something that explains the data better.
>
> We have also agreed that the evidence does not support the claims.
Which is wrong. You are both ignorant of the evidence, and willfully blind
to it. You refuse to see the evidence.
> This means evolutionists must accept and act like the evidence does
> because the Biblical explanation is not an option.
The "Biblical explanation" would be an option, if it matched the evidence.
It doesn't. It's not a matter of rejection of the Biblical creation
stories due to atheism. They were rejected as science by devout Anglican
ministers, who were among the first scientists.
>
>
>> Evolution of species does not appear to be possible and yet it is shoved
>> down peoples throats as if it were fact. Almost laughable. It would
>> appear
>> there is some sort of an agenda at work here (or) that accepting
>> evolution
>> of species as fact is required for some greater belief system I do not
>> understand.
>>
>> (A)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Agreed: evolution is impossible.
Ray, not only is evolution possible, it's directly observed. You are, in
effect standing in an airport, and declaring that heavier than air flight is
impossible.
> It is ***made*** possible because the
> Bible and its God are hated.
But most people don't hate the Bible, or hate God. Even atheists don't
normally hate what they don't believe in. Evolution is not "made
possible" it just is possible, and ongoing. Evolution of species has been
directly observed, both in the wild, and in the lab. You already know
this, why do you persist in making blatently false claims?
DJT
Mitchell Holman
Where is the evidence of that?
>> What
>> angers me is that this vital information is footnoted, trivialized or
>> hidden from the general public.
>
> It's the way evolutionists operate. They are not in the business of
> science, but Atheism.
>
>> Many are led as sheep to believe it must be true.
>
> Accurate way of describing the ordinary evolutionist and many of their
> run-of-the-mill "scientists." Since the Biblical explanation is not an
> option for Atheism, what choice do they have? Evolution is a one horse
> race.
Show us the proof of the "Biblical Explanation".
>
>> Furthermore, anyone who questions the validity of this theory based on
>> the exact same scientific evidence purported to confirm it is ridiculed
>> and often told the only way to refute evolution of species is to offer
>> an alternate theory...which is absurd.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
> We have also agreed that the evidence does not support the claims.
> This means evolutionists must accept and act like the evidence does
> because the Biblical explanation is not an option.
Biblical explaination - but not Biblical EVIDENCE.
Where is the EVIDENCE?
Start with the sort that doesn't contradict itself.....
Gen 1:11-12, Trees were created before man was created.
Gen 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
Gen 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
Gen 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
Gen 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
Gen 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
Gen 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
Gen 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Interpretation" by our Atheist presupposes two chronologies, no
wonder they contradict.
Ray
Lee Jay
The reason they don't contradict is that a literal reading of the
Bible is usually wrong.
Lee Jay
Shane
> "Shane" <rema...@Netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:1uokk5hy3lo6z.1...@40tude.net...
>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:50:08 -0500, Apocalypse wrote:
>>
>>> It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
>>> scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where
>>> we
>>> came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
>>>
>>> This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific fact.
>>> Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
>>
> [snip]
>>Science is not in
>> the business of saying this theory, which explains this fact, is set in
>> stone and is impossible to refute.
>
> While that statement does put science in to its proper place that is not
> what one observes in the world.
Yet funnily enough Patriot Games, a rather strident
anti-evolutionist here on t.o. laughs at science in general,
and evolutionary science in particular, because he sees the
exact thing you say does not exist. (see Lizards Rapidly
Evolve thread). Now who are we to believe?
Also funnily enough, even a pop science magazine like New
Scientist rarely has an issue in which some aspect of
science is not being questioned, along with references and
interviews and notes of dissenting views. I wonder how they
have gotten away for so long with this gross
misrepresentation of your observation of the stability of
science? Could it be that you are in error, and you have not
looke hard enough at science to see the evidence that
counters your "observations"?
> In the area of origins what one observes is
> the propagation of some myth that science has long since proven evolution
> and origins. This is not true.
Do you mean origin of species or origin of life? Not that it
matters all that much, as science does not claim to have the
full story on either. Although in the case of species, it
does claim that based on observations, evolution occurs via
as yet not fully understood or even completely known
mechanisms.
> Science is only a process to observe, weigh and measure. It has proven many
> facts but has proven nothing substantive as far as origins.
Science has not proven one thing in its entire history. It
has disproven many things, and as for all the others, it has
offered explanations of varying accuracy for the things it
has observed, weighed and measured, and quite a few things
that it has it knows only by inference.
Note that even as great a scientist as Newton was, his
explanation of planetary motion did not prove anything, it
gave a great explanation of observed reality that suffices
for most purposes, but was still not entirely correct. So he
proved nothing, for how could an incorrect explanation be
proof of something?
> The more we know (scientifically), the more we realize we just don't know.
I don't know about this "we" business and I am not sure
science itself makes any such claim. But in your particular
case, as you have admitted elsethread to relying on "street
smarts" rather than knowledge, it seems that you admit to
being both ignorant of science and thus vastly more ignorant
of what you don't know. Whilst I admire your honesty, it has
left readers with almost no reason to give credence to any
statement you make.
Vernon Balbert
produced this interesting bit of text:
But I thought creationists took a literal reading of the Bible to be the
way it is.
--
Rule of Acquisition number 10: Greed is eternal.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do you mean this point to be taken literally?
[Note: my question above is a literal question.]
[Note: the note above is to be taken literally.]
Ray