Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

originally posted by: Blindmancc
How can experts tell one master piece painting from the other and who painted each? The touch of the masters hand is the same.

A painting is a painting. The earth is the earth. You are making a false comparison, just like all the others comparing natural things to machinery and other things designed by humans. They aren't even close to the same thing. People just get emotional because nature can be beautiful, and people think it's automatically a work of art for that reason alone, even though we have natural explanations for pretty much all of it.

I'd love to see ItstheTooth make an appearance here, but I think he may have been banned.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Yes indeed, and in science a theory means: "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]".

Thus it has passed all the tests to qualify. Has your creationist dogma?

[1] National Academy of Sciences, 1999
[2] "The Structure of Scientific Theories" in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
[3] Schafersman, Steven D. "An Introduction to Science"

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

Yes indeed, and in science a theory means: "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]".

Thus it has passed all the tests to qualify. Has your creationist dogma?

[1] National Academy of Sciences, 1999
[2] "The Structure of Scientific Theories" in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
[3] Schafersman, Steven D. "An Introduction to Science"

Repetable, Observable, Testable evidence???
Yawn

a reply to: Raggedyman

We've been through this. You refuse to read the sources. It thus makes you the ignorant mutated ape, who would rather fling their feces, than someone open to discussion.

Proof has been posted, disect that. Go into any thread in here, where you and your creationist cabal ignore the posts of others

I don't look at the theory of evolution from a provable scientific viewpoint, because there's simply not enough evidence to prove or disprove the theory. I look at it from it's effects. The theory of evolution coupled with the doctrine of uniformity puts people into a sleepy haze. They see our earth as something that changes very slowly over millions of years.

That makes them complacent and more willing to subject themselves to all sorts of delusional oppression. Therefore the theory is working at intended, not as proven.

a reply to: SkeptiSchism

You are welcome to that opinion. Are you saying the earth does not change slowly? Oh and are you talking about evolution of the planet or of the creatures on it. Both are provable but different things to talk too.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: SkeptiSchism

You are welcome to that opinion. Are you saying the earth does not change slowly? Oh and are you talking about evolution of the planet or of the creatures on it. Both are provable but different things to talk too.

I fall into the cataclysmic geology camp, much maligned so I'll exit stage left.

lulz

a reply to: SkeptiSchism

So not willing to discuss? Shame. Also not really this threads topic

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
I don't look at the theory of evolution from a provable scientific viewpoint, because there's simply not enough evidence to prove or disprove the theory.

How you look at it isn't particularly relevant. Evolution is a fact, it does occur, it is measurable, it is testable, it is repeatable. Evolutionary theory as described in the modern evolutionary synthesis exists to study the mechanisms of the change in allele frequency over time. It has nothing to do with providing evidence that evolution as a biological mechanism occurs because we can see it in the lab, in the fossil record and in genetics.

As for disproving it, in science you don't provide evidence of a negative. The corpus of knowledge as it relates to the MES is falsifiable so feel free to demonstrate any data to support an alternative hypothesis.

I look at it from it's effects. The theory of evolution coupled with the doctrine of uniformity puts people into a sleepy haze.

The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. One is biological and the other geological. Completely separate areas of inquiry.

They see our earth as something that changes very slowly over millions of years.

Nobody who understands the MES says that changes in geology can't occur at rapid paces. The thing about geology is that being the oldest formal scientific discipline means it's very well understood and that geologists can see and explain the differences between instances of
slow and fast changes in strata.

That makes them complacent and more willing to subject themselves to all sorts of delusional oppression. Therefore the theory is working at intended, not as proven.

As I mentioned earlier, evolution is indeed a factual, verifiable biological process. The people that are complacent are the ones who obtain their information from handy little websites and haven't had the opportunity to study the topics formally because confirmation bias wins the day.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

We've been through this. You refuse to read the sources. It thus makes you the ignorant mutated ape, who would rather fling their feces, than someone open to discussion.

Proof has been posted, disect that. Go into any thread in here, where you and your creationist cabal ignore the posts of others

Well
Repetable, Observable, Testable evidence???
Yawn
Can you show me one peer reviewed article that accepts and proves, not speculates, evolution?
Not pretty pictures from school books you people like, journal articles...

a reply to: Raggedyman

lol... you're hopeless brother

a reply to: Raggedyman

Can you supply the same for your view on how we got here?.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

We've been through this. You refuse to read the sources. It thus makes you the ignorant mutated ape, who would rather fling their feces, than someone open to discussion.

Proof has been posted, disect that. Go into any thread in here, where you and your creationist cabal ignore the posts of others

Well
Repetable, Observable, Testable evidence???
Yawn
Can you show me one peer reviewed article that accepts and proves, not speculates, evolution?
Not pretty pictures from school books you people like, journal articles...

Evidence has been shown to you, on thread after thread after thread. The fact that you have chosen to ignore it but then pretend that it's never been presented to you is your problem, not ours.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

We've been through this. You refuse to read the sources. It thus makes you the ignorant mutated ape, who would rather fling their feces, than someone open to discussion.

Proof has been posted, disect that. Go into any thread in here, where you and your creationist cabal ignore the posts of others

Well
Repetable, Observable, Testable evidence???
Yawn
Can you show me one peer reviewed article that accepts and proves, not speculates, evolution?
Not pretty pictures from school books you people like, journal articles...

Evidence has been shown to you, on thread after thread after thread. The fact that you have chosen to ignore it but then pretend that it's never been presented to you is your problem, not ours.

Can you show me one peer reviewed article that accepts and proves, not speculates, evolution?

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Raggedyman

Can you supply the same for your view on how we got here?.

No, I am not preteding my view is scientific, unlike you
Cheers

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Raggedyman

lol... you're hopeless brother

Well I have hope for you Ak

a reply to: Raggedyman

what is the point, you won't read whatever he posts anyways

as has been shown in soo many threads on this topic

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Raggedyman

lol... you're hopeless brother

Well I have hope for you Ak

what does that even mean?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Lol okay dude. Can you actually prove it wrong like the thread asks?.