Proof that evolution is the only answer

a reply to: Raggedyman

Again you've made a statement, not proven something to be so. That is logically flawed. As I said you are hostile to science, and you are an admitted foe to evolutiion.

As for more religious than you? I've not talked about my spiritual practices much. But if you think so, then so be it. My paganism is a personal mater. My science is my job. I know you don't understand the difference.

a reply to: Noinden

Strawman, I don't care about your religious practice, I can see your need for religion in evolution, call it what you will.

Mice molars prove evolution how. That is one of the empirical evidences listed.
Explain how mice molars in fossils prove anything at all other than mice had molars

Use science without assumption to prove what mice molars prove
If you like, feel free to pick another of the 14 evidences and prove they are empirical, they are a joke.

Prove mice molars are empirical evidence other for anything other than mice had molars

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

Again you've made a statement, not proven something to be so. That is logically flawed. As I said you are hostile to science, and you are an admitted foe to evolutiion.

As for more religious than you? I've not talked about my spiritual practices much. But if you think so, then so be it. My paganism is a personal mater. My science is my job. I know you don't understand the difference.

Yes I made a statement
There is no empirical evidence to evolution
Then I asked for the empirical evidence to invalidate my statement

Still waiting

Why do you hate science, it's a question I can keep repeating
You are ignorant to sciencing

How do mice molars prove empirical evidence
Your religion is your job, you have perverted science and turned it into a religion, I am sorry you don't see simple

The scientific question still stands, answer it. Where is the empirical evidence for evolution, mice molars is not empirical evidence unless you can explain how it proves evolution
Please use any of the other 14 statements to validate your beliefs if that helps

Now I don't care about your faith,your job, your opinion of me, your skin colour, sport team, my hostility to science

I am still asking for empirical evidence for evolution, please...

Now your mew strawman is that I am a foe to evolution
Interesting but irrelevant
I know many Christians who are believers in evolution, so
I know Christian evolution believers, that means that I accept Christians can believe in evolution without it damaging their faith
See, I can be a Christian and believe in evolution if I saw evolution had empirical evidence

Your argument is based on assumption, like your faith in evolution
Strawman

Noinden, aside from all that, mice molars in fossils, how is that empirical proof of evolution. Give me a scientific explanation

a reply to: Noinden

I think it is you who fail to understand logic, evolution and science...lol

Firstly, we do NOT observe evolution, not in the way that the theory of evolution states. In fact, it is literally impossible to observe evolution as described in the theory of evolution.

Secondly, you do not understand logical reasoning if you think that there is any knowable fact beyond your own consciousness existing. Read some Descartes. All else is agreed upon reality, which is NOT fact by the strict definition and as such is potentially all a construct of your consciousness.

Thirdly, it was a colloquialism, any God... In fact, it could be Gaia or even your god, evolution... Please learn to reason and think and quit swallowing from the spoon of the paradigms. I think for myself.

Jaden

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Raggedyman

Care to list the "many problems" you believe exist with MES?

How about we play the ball in the game in the thread here

The lack of empirical evidence, no point side tracking down the rabbit hole, did you miss my question

............."Can you show me empirical evidence for evolution"...........

You might have missed my question in amongst everything else

a reply to: Raggedyman

You've already been shown empirical evidence. You chose to ignore it and say it wasn't.

So, what are these "many problems" with MES? Can you list them or is it just your opinion?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Raggedyman

You've already been shown empirical evidence. You chose to ignore it and say it wasn't.

So, what are these "many problems" with MES? Can you list them or is it just your opinion?

So you keep saying, I havnt seen any

I recently read mice molars in fossils prove evolution
Care to explain how that works

Simple TD, I don't want to wander from asking for empirical evidence for evolution.
I won't be bringing is side issues, sorry
If you want, start another thread, if this one ends, I have time, it catches my fancy I may entertain the idea, but here now, no.
I am asking for evidence of an empirical nature

Please offer some empirical evidence for evolution, that would be grand
Don't just say you have in the passed ( because that's not true) offer some, then we can discuss that like two adults

Let's go team.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I think you've made up your own definition of what empirical evidence means. How about you share with the rest of us what you think it means. Then we can at least be on a similar book, maybe not the same page.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Go look a few pages back, it was established so we were all very clear as to its meaning

Truthfully I don't trust your sincerity TD and don't want to share my time with you

Empirical evidence, let's see how long you hang around

a reply to: Raggedyman

Just post what you believe empirical evidence means.

As for the rest? Meh.

Funny how you think you get to dictate to anyone what we should or shouldn't do, yet you can't even do a simple thing, like list the "many problems" with MES.

a reply to: Masterjaden

We have indeed observed evolution in our lifetimes. Antibiotic resistance is just such an example.

I'm someone who commits science for a living every day. You have admitted you don't quite understand it.

I have several gods neighbour. Perhaps I can imagine larger numbers than you?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Demonstrate that this is a straw man argument. You can not say it is, and poof thus it is. That is your faith talking. Not science.

As for proof. Read the associated papers... if you can.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Raggedyman

Just post what you believe empirical evidence means.

As for the rest? Meh.

Funny how you think you get to dictate to anyone what we should or shouldn't do, yet you can't even do a simple thing, like list the "many problems" with MES.

I have already, meh
Don't tell me what to do, you don't get to dictate at me

Empirical evidence ???

a reply to: Raggedyman

What's your definition of emperical evidence? If it's the same as the ACTUAL definition then there's only 1 thing I need to say....

MRSA.

a reply to: UB2120

That's a fine religious belief. I just wish you would be real and acknowledge it as such.

Evolutionary theory is a belief system. It's pseudoscience at best. It requires great leaps of logic and incoherence to be accepted as reality. Extrapolating to the nth degree to get to a scientific theory (which is exactly what the theory of evolution does) is PSEUDOSCIENCE.

The only observable evolution is on such a small scale that it requires huge leaps of reasoning to get to what becomes the overall theory of evolution and that's without even having to get CLOSE to the level of abiogenesis.

Jaden

a reply to: Noinden

I haven't admitted ANYTHING. You showcase that you don't understand it at all. I unequivocally do REAL science EVERY day for a living. My work requires a strict logic in order for it to work at all.

Proper science needs to be logically validated and ideally to be deductive logically based. Evolutionary theory is so to the nth degree inductive logically based as to be farcical.

Saying gradual change over time is no more scientifically sound than saying bearded guy directing harp playing winged cherubs to do it. Not when the change required necessitates faith in processes that need to completely corrupt co-interdependent natural processes on the level that the theory of evolution requires.

FYI, I AM not stating that evolution isn't how it happened, nor am I saying that Omnipobeing snapped his fingers and made it all happen.

What I am saying is that there is one side here acknowledging that their beliefs are faith based and one side that has their heads buried so deep in the sand, that they're sticking up the ass of an Australian (If you're in the U.S.).

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

You do "real science every day for a living" well so do I. I work at a CRO, as Process Development Chemist. I'm also published (and no I'm not sharing my name on this site).

You clearly don't understand evolution from your statements. As I said. Antibiotic resistance, is an observable evolutionary change.

Oh and look at my profile. I'm not from the US (though I've lived and worked there). I'm from the greener country on the other side of the ditch to you.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Well thank you
But I think you will need to do a little more than say 1 thing, MRSA

I mean really, it's a little arrogant to think 4 letters is sufficient to prove empirical evidence
Though
I am intrigued, let's go
Link, please

a reply to: Noinden

You do realize that antibiotic resistance is merely an observation of adaptation right? That is NOT an observation of evolution as purported under evolutionary theory... so please try again.

I mean that's like saying that the atomic clock experiments are proof of time dilation... do you believe THAT too???

The only thing that the atomic clock empirically showed is that cesium atoms oscillate at different frequencies when one is well above the earth and one was deep inside the earth...

It supports time dilation as a part of relativity theory but does not empirically show.

You see, this idea that we empirically know certain facts is one of the underlying problems with the scientific paradigms and this problem severely limits our ability to get past erroneous paradigms.

So show me again how we've empirically observed evolutionary theory in nature???

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

No try again.

Antibiotic resistance is a consequence of evolution. Or are you about to do the hackneyed "micro vs macro" logical fallacy. You are also trying the "empirical evidence" Fallacy as well.

Sorry mate, thats not going to fly.

Prove that it is not evolution. Not say it is. Sciencesays it is.

So what "Science" do you do every day neighbour. Don't be shy. I've shared.