Modern proof of evolution.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I didn't say I had empirical evidence, he did, you go ask him

I know...

You said religion is not a science, it has no empirical evidence, you believe on faith and not on evidence.

then... in your response to me you link a video of a creationist claiming to have empirical evidence for creationism.

So what was the point in you linking that?? If you disagree with it and all...

originally posted by: TzarChasm
would you be willing to define evidence? and explain how the illustrations do not qualify as such?

He wants us to haul in corpses of Caecilians, Salamanders, Neobatrachia, Phthanobatrachia, Ceratobatrachidae, Ranidae, Rhancophoridae & Mantelidae So that we can dissect them and compare and contrast physiological features. Then we're going to map the DNA of all these critters and compare the similarities and differences of those. We will be sure to cross reference the mitochondrial DNA because the nucleotides from the X chromosome really tell the story. And since Raggedyman doesn't trust US, we'll have to have an objective 3rd party there to supervise and make sure we don't sully the evidence. And we'll also have a justice of the peace to certify our findings and record it for all time...officially.

How does Saturday work for you? I'll bring the beer!

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

What is so modern about this proof of evolution?

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Raggedyman

I didn't say I had empirical evidence, he did, you go ask him

I know...

You said religion is not a science, it has no empirical evidence, you believe on faith and not on evidence.

then... in your response to me you link a video of a creationist claiming to have empirical evidence for creationism.

So what was the point in you linking that?? If you disagree with it and all...

I believe he may have some evidence that convinces him, thats fine by me, I dont think there is any.
I accept his different point of view as I accept your beliefs in evolution are fine for you

I have a different opinion

I dont expect every one to agree with me in relation to creation either, doesnt mean I dismiss everything they say

What a myopic view you have

The Scientific Case Against Evolution
A Review of Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis & Michael J. Behe's Darwin's Black Box

by Robert Locke

I AM NOT A CREATIONIST, and must confess that until recently, I treated people who questioned evolution with polite dismissal. But there has recently emerged a major trend in biology that has been suppressed in the mainstream media: evolution is in trouble. More importantly, this has absolutely nothing to do with religion but is due to the fact that the ongoing growth of biological knowledge keeps producing facts that contradict rather than confirm evolution. These two books—Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Michael J. Behe's Darwin's Black Box—describe this phenomenon.

There are even distinguished philosophers of science, like Sir Karl Popper, a man of impeccable credentials and no religious ax to grind, who have openly questioned whether evolution is a science at all, in principle and not just in practice, because its assertions are not potentially falsifiable. A true science, like physics, makes claims that can be tested and thus potentially falsified; this vulnerability is what makes it worthy of belief when despite this, the falsification does not happen. But evolution does not make claims of this kind. Furthermore, it is one of the touchstones of science that it is based on repeatable experiments. The data used to support evolution are neither experiments nor repeatable, nor can they be, since the origin of species on earth was a unique event. This doesn�t necessarily make evolution nonsense, but it strongly suggests it doesn�t have the right to demand the kind of acquiescence that physics demands on the strength of its being straightforwardly a science. What exactly evolution is, if Popper is right and it is not quite a science in the conventional sense, is an open question. It is probably not without significance that what is now called biology used to be called natural history, an older and perhaps more appropriate concept.

www.godandscience.org...

So Lucid Lunacy, its not a silly position I hold, its based on science.
Please read the books and then come back.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I believe he may have some evidence that convinces him, thats fine by me, I dont think there is any.

? Alright. Thanks for sharing the viewpoint that neither of us agree to with me.

What a myopic view you have

My view is that I wait for substantial evidence before I believe something is likely true. This goes towards anything.

I view your position of faith, meaning belief without evidence, as lazy thinking. That's my opinion since we are sharing them.

So Lucid Lunacy, its not a silly position I hold, its based on science.

You have already acknowledged the position you hold is creationism, which you have already stated multiple times you don't have evidence for. You have already acknowledged your religious faith is not scientific.

Doing your best to point out holes in the opposing theory does nothing to booster the evidence of what your actual position is. That's silly.

So to break it down:

1. You state there isn't evidence for the Theory of Evolution
2. You state there is no evidence for Creationism

You think the alleged lack of evidence in the Theory of Evolution is problematic so we shouldn't hold belief in it.

However, the lack of evidence in Creationism is not problematic, and so you hold belief in it despite the lack of evidence.

That's ridiculous.

As for evidence for the Theory of Evolution (evolution itself is a fact, the mechanisms underlying it is the scientific theory), I am more than willing to link various courses I took from various colleges through MOOC for you so you can learn it too.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

The position I hold is that there is no empirical evidence for evolution.
My faith views on creation are irrelevant in context

Your problem is with me, my problem is not with you, my problem is with the science or lack thereof in relation to evolution

Hence

The Scientific Case Against Evolution
A Review of Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis & Michael J. Behe's Darwin's Black Box

by Robert Locke

I AM NOT A CREATIONIST, and must confess that until recently, I treated people who questioned evolution with polite dismissal. But there has recently emerged a major trend in biology that has been suppressed in the mainstream media: evolution is in trouble. More importantly, this has absolutely nothing to do with religion but is due to the fact that the ongoing growth of biological knowledge keeps producing facts that contradict rather than confirm evolution. These two books—Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Michael J. Behe's Darwin's Black Box—describe this phenomenon.

There are even distinguished philosophers of science, like Sir Karl Popper, a man of impeccable credentials and no religious ax to grind, who have openly questioned whether evolution is a science at all, in principle and not just in practice, because its assertions are not potentially falsifiable. A true science, like physics, makes claims that can be tested and thus potentially falsified; this vulnerability is what makes it worthy of belief when despite this, the falsification does not happen. But evolution does not make claims of this kind. Furthermore, it is one of the touchstones of science that it is based on repeatable experiments. The data used to support evolution are neither experiments nor repeatable, nor can they be, since the origin of species on earth was a unique event. This doesn�t necessarily make evolution nonsense, but it strongly suggests it doesn�t have the right to demand the kind of acquiescence that physics demands on the strength of its being straightforwardly a science. What exactly evolution is, if Popper is right and it is not quite a science in the conventional sense, is an open question. It is probably not without significance that what is now called biology used to be called natural history, an older and perhaps more appropriate concept.

www.godandscience.org...



I fully understand why you believe in evolution, I accept and agree with your stance, its your only option
Fine, doesnt mean its true or scientific

a reply to: Raggedyman

My faith views on creation are irrelevant in context

It's completely relevant when your argument is that holding the belief the ToE is true is problematic if there is no evidence to substantiate it...

Why do we have this burden for our position, but you don't for your own?

The reality is, both of us have the burden. You calling it 'faith' doesn't make you immune from the need for evidence.

its your only option

What.

spam removed by staff

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Raggedyman

My faith views on creation are irrelevant in context

It's completely relevant when your argument is that holding the belief the ToE is true is problematic if there is no evidence to substantiate it...

Why do we have this burden for our position, but you don't for your own?

The reality is, both of us have the burden. You calling it 'faith' doesn't make you immune from the need for evidence.

its your only option

What.

I am sorry that you have the burden of scientific evidence and proof on your argument
When something is being passed of as a science it must have empirical evidence to support it.
See science is not a faith, its evidence, repeatable, observable and testable evidence. Science is not a faith, science is a system that relies on falsification, proving wrong, not proving right.

The reality is only science has the burden, scientists who have to prove their faith in evolution

I have no burden, I admit I choose to believe in creation, I dont need proof, my beliefs are not a science

Your argument is silly

Scientists state that evolution is true, it must be first proven

I believe that creation is true, you can call it a myth, fairy tale, whatever. I wont argue that you are wrong or right, faith

Science demands evidence, proof, truth, show it, your burden if you want to carry it by all means

My argument isnt for creation, its a faith choice

My argument is that evolution has no empirical evidence, science has to prove I am wrong with the evidence

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy
The position I hold is that there is no empirical evidence for evolution.

Here is the Definition of Empirical[Evidence], again:

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.

empirical em·pir·i·cal (ěm-pēr'ĭ-kəl) adj. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment. Of or being a philosophy of medicine emphasizing practical experience and observation over scientific theory.

Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation.

1 : originating in or based on observation or experience 2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory 3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment .

Please stop using the term if you do not know what it means.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I am sorry that you have the burden of scientific evidence

Don't apologize. I already said we did have that burden! I believe this burden is being met. I disagree there isn't empirical evidence to support the ToE. I'm not suggesting we don't have that burden...

I'm saying...

I have no burden, I admit I choose to believe in creation, I dont need proof

...that this notion is beyond absurd.

You're saying we need to have evidence, but you do not. Your only rationale for this is that 'faith' is exempt because it's 'faith'. Nonsense.

What you're really arguing is that belief only needs to be justified with evidence if it's contrary to your worldview.

If you actually valued evidence then you would see you shared this burden.

Since you don't value evidence in the formulation of belief then why should we go out of our way to share evidence with you??

I looked over all the threads you have started about evolution & creationism. I read them all last night (including comments). You have been presented with plenty of evidence prior to this thread. I imagine you'll make another thread soon enough and also ignore the evidence shared.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I believe your belief in evolution is just as absurd, even more so actually, go figure
I have seen no empirical evidence, when you understand that we will understand each other

again because you seem to ignore the issue
Please read what is written below, meditate on the written words, try and understand what they say and how it relates to evolution and science.
My beliefs in no way impact the science or lack thereof in relation to evolution. Strawman argument

The Scientific Case Against Evolution
A Review of Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis & Michael J. Behe's Darwin's Black Box

by Robert Locke

I AM NOT A CREATIONIST, and must confess that until recently, I treated people who questioned evolution with polite dismissal. But there has recently emerged a major trend in biology that has been suppressed in the mainstream media: evolution is in trouble. More importantly, this has absolutely nothing to do with religion but is due to the fact that the ongoing growth of biological knowledge keeps producing facts that contradict rather than confirm evolution. These two books—Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Michael J. Behe's Darwin's Black Box—describe this phenomenon.

There are even distinguished philosophers of science, like Sir Karl Popper, a man of impeccable credentials and no religious ax to grind, who have openly questioned whether evolution is a science at all, in principle and not just in practice, because its assertions are not potentially falsifiable. A true science, like physics, makes claims that can be tested and thus potentially falsified; this vulnerability is what makes it worthy of belief when despite this, the falsification does not happen. But evolution does not make claims of this kind. Furthermore, it is one of the touchstones of science that it is based on repeatable experiments. The data used to support evolution are neither experiments nor repeatable, nor can they be, since the origin of species on earth was a unique event. This doesn�t necessarily make evolution nonsense, but it strongly suggests it doesn�t have the right to demand the kind of acquiescence that physics demands on the strength of its being straightforwardly a science. What exactly evolution is, if Popper is right and it is not quite a science in the conventional sense, is an open question. It is probably not without significance that what is now called biology used to be called natural history, an older and perhaps more appropriate concept.

www.godandscience.org...


If a noted scientist like Karl Popper questions the science of evolution, an atheist, why should I not question it as well.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I have seen no empirical evidence

In this thread you stated you personally "disproved the scientific method".

Outside of how absurd and megalomanic that is, it demonstrates your utter disregard for science.

So of course you've personally never seen the evidence for it! You don't even believe in the scientific methodology to begin with!

meditate on the written words, try and understand what they say

Let's make a deal. I'll read and contemplate it if you go back to all those threads you made and read and contemplate the plethora of evidence for the Theory of Evolution that was given to you over and over.

My beliefs in no way impact the science or lack thereof in relation to evolution

Correct.

It does call in to question how you value evidence. You don't. You missed the point there.

If a noted scientist like Karl Popper questions the science of evolution, an atheist, why should I not question it as well.

Okay. So if 98% of the community supports evolution then why shouldn't you question your position as well??

originally posted by: Raggedyman
The Scientific Case Against Evolution

by Robert Locke

Ah, Mr Locke, who claims to be non religious and yet writes exactly like a creationist.

If a noted scientist like Karl Popper questions the science of evolution, an atheist, why should I not question it as well.

As far as I know Popper's criticism was of natural selection/survival of the fittest, and not of evolution per se. But that was his own misunderstanding and he admitted he was wrong at a later date.

So no, Popper did not question the science of evolution, he even said that 'descent with modification' was a historical fact (I can post his citations if you want).

You shouldn't trust what guys like Locke said, just go straight to the original sources, in this case Popper who agreed with the theory of evolution.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Raggedyman

I have seen no empirical evidence

In this thread you stated you personally "disproved the scientific method".

Outside of how absurd and megalomanic that is, it demonstrates your utter disregard for science.

So of course you've personally never seen the evidence for it! You don't even believe in the scientific methodology to begin with!

meditate on the written words, try and understand what they say

Let's make a deal. I'll read and contemplate it if you go back to all those threads you made and read and contemplate the plethora of evidence for the Theory of Evolution that was given to you over and over.

My beliefs in no way impact the science or lack thereof in relation to evolution

Correct.

It does call in to question how you value evidence. You don't. You missed the point there.

If a noted scientist like Karl Popper questions the science of evolution, an atheist, why should I not question it as well.

Okay. So if 98% of the community supports evolution then why shouldn't you question your position as well??

Thats silly, how can I disprove something not proven, if I said that then I made a silly error.
I cant disprove the unproven, think about that for a little bit

I value evidence, gravity, a round earth to name two
Evolution
Lets see what some serious scientists say

The Scientific Case Against Evolution
A Review of Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis & Michael J. Behe's Darwin's Black Box

by Robert Locke

I AM NOT A CREATIONIST, and must confess that until recently, I treated people who questioned evolution with polite dismissal. But there has recently emerged a major trend in biology that has been suppressed in the mainstream media: evolution is in trouble. More importantly, this has absolutely nothing to do with religion but is due to the fact that the ongoing growth of biological knowledge keeps producing facts that contradict rather than confirm evolution. These two books—Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Michael J. Behe's Darwin's Black Box—describe this phenomenon.

There are even distinguished philosophers of science, like Sir Karl Popper, a man of impeccable credentials and no religious ax to grind, who have openly questioned whether evolution is a science at all, in principle and not just in practice, because its assertions are not potentially falsifiable. A true science, like physics, makes claims that can be tested and thus potentially falsified; this vulnerability is what makes it worthy of belief when despite this, the falsification does not happen. But evolution does not make claims of this kind. Furthermore, it is one of the touchstones of science that it is based on repeatable experiments. The data used to support evolution are neither experiments nor repeatable, nor can they be, since the origin of species on earth was a unique event. This doesn�t necessarily make evolution nonsense, but it strongly suggests it doesn�t have the right to demand the kind of acquiescence that physics demands on the strength of its being straightforwardly a science. What exactly evolution is, if Popper is right and it is not quite a science in the conventional sense, is an open question. It is probably not without significance that what is now called biology used to be called natural history, an older and perhaps more appropriate concept.

www.godandscience.org...


It seems I am repeating myself doesnt it or do you not read that quote

I know your method, attack me because you think you are smarter, my method, place up other scientists who I agree with.
Your response, ignore them and attack me

Your mind tricks dont work on me LL

originally posted by: MuonToGluon

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy
The position I hold is that there is no empirical evidence for evolution.

Here is the Definition of Empirical[Evidence], again:

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.

empirical em·pir·i·cal (ěm-pēr'ĭ-kəl) adj. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment. Of or being a philosophy of medicine emphasizing practical experience and observation over scientific theory.

Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation.

1 : originating in or based on observation or experience 2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory 3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment .

Please stop using the term if you do not know what it means.

I value evidence, gravity, a round earth to name two
Evolution
Lets see what some serious scientists say

The Scientific Case Against Evolution
A Review of Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis & Michael J. Behe's Darwin's Black Box

by Robert Locke

I AM NOT A CREATIONIST, and must confess that until recently, I treated people who questioned evolution with polite dismissal. But there has recently emerged a major trend in biology that has been suppressed in the mainstream media: evolution is in trouble. More importantly, this has absolutely nothing to do with religion but is due to the fact that the ongoing growth of biological knowledge keeps producing facts that contradict rather than confirm evolution. These two books—Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Michael J. Behe's Darwin's Black Box—describe this phenomenon.

There are even distinguished philosophers of science, like Sir Karl Popper, a man of impeccable credentials and no religious ax to grind, who have openly questioned whether evolution is a science at all, in principle and not just in practice, because its assertions are not potentially falsifiable. A true science, like physics, makes claims that can be tested and thus potentially falsified; this vulnerability is what makes it worthy of belief when despite this, the falsification does not happen. But evolution does not make claims of this kind. Furthermore, it is one of the touchstones of science that it is based on repeatable experiments. The data used to support evolution are neither experiments nor repeatable, nor can they be, since the origin of species on earth was a unique event. This doesn�t necessarily make evolution nonsense, but it strongly suggests it doesn�t have the right to demand the kind of acquiescence that physics demands on the strength of its being straightforwardly a science. What exactly evolution is, if Popper is right and it is not quite a science in the conventional sense, is an open question. It is probably not without significance that what is now called biology used to be called natural history, an older and perhaps more appropriate concept.

www.godandscience.org...


I will use any term I find appropriate in context, thanks anyway

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy
I have seen no empirical evidence

There is that term again, ignoring the posts of the definition of the term, the last including 4 different definitions of it.

He ignores the proper dictionary term of the words, why are we even trying to convince him of anything else when he will dismiss actual meanings of words?

He and his cult is like The Borg, "Resistance is futile", only surrendering to his and their way of glowing thinking and belief is accepted and nothing else, there is no point in a discussion when one is blind to all.

DP

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I will use any term I find appropriate in context, thanks anyway

Thank you for telling us that you will make up anything that you choose and twist it into your way of thinking, you have just told us that you a complete utter liar that will make up and twist anything that you want.

I appreciate the honesty, you liar, you would make a good politician.