Expelled

[RetiredGySgt]

That's the thing, dude.. SCIENCE will admit as much... Will your dogma dare to act in kind?


THAT, sir, is the difference between science and dogma. Read about Francis Bacon sometime. I notice that you don't offer your OWN physical evidence for your OWN creation opinion... Why is that, RGS? Quiver empty? Talking shit on evolution seem to be all you require?

Praytell, show me who you use the scientific method to prove creation better than the evidence that supports evolution and the big bang.


or, just retreat.. whatever is clever on this fine xmas eve.


Merry CHISTmas, RGS.

I happen to believe in evolution WITHIN species. It is factual and easily proven. I do NOT believe man evolved from an "ape like" creature. And until science can actually provided real evidence of same I won't believe it.

Pretty damn simple really. What I find objectionable is the fact we teach our children a specific theory that is nothing more than a guess, but we can not eductae them on another theory because YOU don't like it.

 

[midcan5]

This always strikes me as funny but scary too, Stein is not arguing for open minds or thinking, what he is arguing for is a religious point of view. There's no reason we couldn't also teach that a Martian or alien from outer space is not the source of all that we see. Outside the end of the universe, a people so advanced they laugh as we speculate on how we got here. We are the miniature act of their play. Given Roswell and alien abductions I'm sure we could find many who believe this and would argue it is the real source of all we know. So why not teach it too.

If Stein is arguing for openness without proof then all knowledge is relative and we have dummied down peoplekind another notch. Maybe history repeats itself backward and planet of the apes is our next step.

 

[Shogun]

I happen to believe in evolution WITHIN species. It is factual and easily proven. I do NOT believe man evolved from an "ape like" creature. And until science can actually provided real evidence of same I won't believe it.

Pretty damn simple really. What I find objectionable is the fact we teach our children a specific theory that is nothing more than a guess, but we can not eductae them on another theory because YOU don't like it.

I don't care what you personally believe. Hell, I don't put any water in your dogma bucket either. This isn't merely about what YOU believe. THis is about what YOU can back up with EVIDENCE. I've posted MYphysical evidence in favor of the bang and evolution. You are free to disbelieve gravity if you want to. However, you cannot cry that science is a religious just because the EVIDENCE provided suggests heliocentrism instead of geocentrism.. or, whatever the clash of the day is.

Now, I invite you to post YOUR evidence instead of falling back on rhetoric. Otherwise, I'll keep pummeling your side on these threads each time they pop up.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't care what you personally believe. Hell, I don't put any water in your dogma bucket either. This isn't merely about what YOU believe. THis is about what YOU can back up with EVIDENCE. I've posted MYphysical evidence in favor of the bang and evolution. You are free to disbelieve gravity if you want to. However, you cannot cry that science is a religious just because the EVIDENCE provided suggests heliocentrism instead of geocentrism.. or, whatever the clash of the day is.

Now, I invite you to post YOUR evidence instead of falling back on rhetoric. Otherwise, I'll keep pummeling your side on these threads each time they pop up.

You have no evidence, none exists. You have theories. Learn the difference.

 

[Shogun]

yea, none except for the pile of evidence I posted already in this very thread.

Hey, way to totally avoid having to provide EVIDENCE of your own dogma myth... I guess we can see why your creation myth really isn't science, can't we?



Scroll up, duder... an expanding Universe is evidence that supports the big bang. Mitocondrial DNA is evidence of evolution at a cellular level. I've posted sources from SCIENCE websites. Let's see you do the same instead of backtracking here. This isn't the first time that I've pointed out that you refuse to back up your assertions with more than rhetorical crap. Your personal ignorance won't make the sun revolve around the Earth any more than your denial will suffice as evidence.


Indeed, Your very lack of EVIDENCE is the perfect example of why dogma must remain outside of the science room. If you had ammo in your apologetic quiver you'd fire the arrow at me.. But, since you totally refuse to abide by the standards of science then don't blame atheists when your dogma fails to meet scientific theoretical requirements.


But, I'll ask again, SHOW ME YOUR EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR DOGMA "SCIENCE". PROVE ME WRONG. I DARE YOU. WITH SUGAR, CHERRIES AND SPRINKLES ON TOP. In fact, I'm going to call you out because I really dont think that you even understand this debate. Why don't you SHOE ME YOUR CHRISTIAN THEORY WITH IT'S CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE AS REQUIRED BY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD so that I can get it strait?


I'll wait. I sure do love seeing dogma junkies showing how little they know about science.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

yea, none except for the pile of evidence I posted already in this very thread.

Hey, way to totally avoid having to provide EVIDENCE of your own dogma myth... I guess we can see why your creation myth really isn't science, can't we?



Scroll up, duder... an expanding Universe is evidence that supports the big bang. Mitocondrial DNA is evidence of evolution at a cellular level. I've posted sources from SCIENCE websites. Let's see you do the same instead of backtracking here. This isn't the first time that I've pointed out that you refuse to back up your assertions with more than rhetorical crap. Your personal ignorance won't make the sun revolve around the Earth any more than your denial will suffice as evidence.


Indeed, Your very lack of EVIDENCE is the perfect example of why dogma must remain outside of the science room. If you had ammo in your apologetic quiver you'd fire the arrow at me.. But, since you totally refuse to abide by the standards of science then don't blame atheists when your dogma fails to meet scientific theoretical requirements.


But, I'll ask again, SHOW ME YOUR EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR DOGMA "SCIENCE". PROVE ME WRONG. I DARE YOU. WITH SUGAR, CHERRIES AND SPRINKLES ON TOP. In fact, I'm going to call you out because I really dont think that you even understand this debate. Why don't you SHOE ME YOUR CHRISTIAN THEORY WITH IT'S CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE AS REQUIRED BY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD so that I can get it strait?


I'll wait. I sure do love seeing dogma junkies showing how little they know about science.

Science can not prove the Big Bang nor the "theory" of how life began, nor the theory that man evolved from an ape like creature. If you can prove any of those why aren't you posting it and then winning the Nobel science prize?

Keep on claiming things that are not proven as fact, you do not do your self any favors.

 

[Shogun]

Science can not prove the Big Bang nor the "theory" of how life began, nor the theory that man evolved from an ape like creature. If you can prove any of those why aren't you posting it and then winning the Nobel science prize?

Keep on claiming things that are not proven as fact, you do not do your self any favors.

We don't narrow SCIENCE down to only that which we can prove; HENCE THE FUCKING NECESSITY OF EVIDENCE. Have YOU ever seen a plate tectonic move? Do you want to make me laugh and claim that continents DONT move? After all, WE HAVE PLENTY OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT PLATE TECTONICS. Hvae you ever seen the Earth revolve around the sun? EVER? Has anyone? NO?!?!?!?! Holy SHIT, then those geocentrists must have been true after all, right? MEEEEEEP! wrong.

Trust me, your inability to comprehend even the BASICS of the scientific process tells me why you are avoiding posting your own jebus evidence like a cat avoids landing on its back. I've already said, SCIENCE will admit that it can be disproven when better theories with supporting evidence emerge and YOU can't say the same about your dogma.

I"ve posted my evidence. Scroll up if you have the balls to address me on this thread beyond the rhetorical dodge. If not, then you are just another zealot totally ignorant of science.


but, I'll challenge you ONE MORE TIME:

Post YOUR evidence. Don't rely on bullshit rhetoric that has no value in SCIENCE. Post your physical evidence... you know, like those phantom golden disks whose presence would have waded through the silly bullshit of the moroni tale. Mormonism might be considered more than another y pluribus unum cult if you had EVIDENCE to show instead of "derrrrr, duhhhh, derrrr.. NO! you are wrong even if I can't prove it or provide evidence to support MY idea!"


*yawn*


I think we both know why you refuse to slam dunk me into errorville by now. Your avoidance has about as much tangible value as any other busted myth. That, sir, is the difference between Science and dogma. I can, and have been, posting EVIDENCE while you tap dance around using rhetoric which really proves nothing other than how desperate you are to avoid showing your worthless hand.


But, anytime you want to surprise me the offer will stand:

Show me your evidence and I'll show you the same which is accepted by the scientific community based on EVIDENCE provided. You've been pwned. Have a nice day.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We don't narrow SCIENCE down to only that which we can prove; HENCE THE FUCKING NECESSITY OF EVIDENCE. Have YOU ever seen a plate tectonic move? Do you want to make me laugh and claim that continents DONT move? After all, WE HAVE PLENTY OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT PLATE TECTONICS. Hvae you ever seen the Earth revolve around the sun? EVER? Has anyone? NO?!?!?!?! Holy SHIT, then those geocentrists must have been true after all, right? MEEEEEEP! wrong.

Trust me, your inability to comprehend even the BASICS of the scientific process tells me why you are avoiding posting your own jebus evidence like a cat avoids landing on its back. I've already said, SCIENCE will admit that it can be disproven when better theories with supporting evidence emerge and YOU can't say the same about your dogma.

I"ve posted my evidence. Scroll up if you have the balls to address me on this thread beyond the rhetorical dodge. If not, then you are just another zealot totally ignorant of science.


but, I'll challenge you ONE MORE TIME:

Post YOUR evidence. Don't rely on bullshit rhetoric that has no value in SCIENCE. Post your physical evidence... you know, like those phantom golden disks whose presence would have waded through the silly bullshit of the moroni tale. Mormonism might be considered more than another y pluribus unum cult if you had EVIDENCE to show instead of "derrrrr, duhhhh, derrrr.. NO! you are wrong even if I can't prove it or provide evidence to support MY idea!"


*yawn*


I think we both know why you refuse to slam dunk me into errorville by now. Your avoidance has about as much tangible value as any other busted myth. That, sir, is the difference between Science and dogma. I can, and have been, posting EVIDENCE while you tap dance around using rhetoric which really proves nothing other than how desperate you are to avoid showing your worthless hand.


But, anytime you want to surprise me the offer will stand:

Show me your evidence and I'll show you the same which is accepted by the scientific community based on EVIDENCE provided. You've been pwned. Have a nice day.

Unlike your moronic drivel I have NEVER claimed I can prove God Exists nor that he did any of the things I believe he did. I do not lie and pretend I can prove that which is unprovable, you on the other hand have no problem making claims that are simply untrue.

There is no real evidence how life started, none. There is no real evidence the Big Bang ever happened, none. And there is NO real evidence man evolved from some Ape creature, not one piece of evidence.

Science makes educated guesses. Some are very good and are supported by reams of evidence to support them, some like the last 3 are weak as hell and are based solely on a string of assumptions with very little real evidence.

The one that does not understand how science works is you. Science works by establishing a theory, the theory is based on assumptions. Then the process is to find cooberation on as much of the assumptions as possible, proving them or disproving them, or in a lot of cases provide circumstantial evidence to support or not support said assumptions. Some of the assumptions can and are proven and are in fact no longer assumptions, but since a theory is a string of assumptions other parts remain to be proven.

Of the three we are discussing, how life began is the WEAKEST of the three. NOT one bit of the base assumptions can be proven, duplicated or forced to happen. The Big Bang theory depends on the assumptions of what certain bits and pieces of space may be or were from, again assumptions with no way to prove them. And then we have man evolved from an ape like creature.... NOT one shred of evidence exists to support it. If you want to play DNA, we must have evolved from the same thing as MICE, since they are very similar to us DNA wise. So I guess before the Ape like creature there was a mouse like creature? Not one shred of evidence. All assumptions.

Evolution INSIDE a species IS proven. When one talks about INSIDE a Species there IS proven evidence it occurs. One of the best examples of that would be the Horse. We have a rich historical evidence tree to support and prove how the horse evolved.

What does NOT exist is evidence of one species evolving into 2 entirely DIFFERENT species. It is an assumption. An unproven theory. A theory with no actually physical evidence it happened.

 

[Shogun]

HAHAHAHA!

ok, where to start...


Unlike your moronic drivel I have NEVER claimed I can prove God Exists nor that he did any of the things I believe he did. I do not lie and pretend I can prove that which is unprovable, you on the other hand have no problem making claims that are simply untrue.


No, of course you can't prove a god. NOW, it seems, can you provide a SINGLE piece of EVIDENCE to offer an alternative to the EVIDENCE we find for the BIG BANG and EVOLUTION. Read the thread again and quote me where I've ever suggested that either PROVE theorigin of humanity. Nice attempt at switching your arguement, dude. And, none of my claims are untrue. THE SCIENCE supports the EVIDENCE for both the big bang and evolution. SCIENTISTS accept both BASED ON THE SAME EVIDENCE I PROVIDED. If you want to AVOID it then so be it. It's not a blemish on my arguement if you refuse to acknowledge gravity.


There is no real evidence how life started, none. There is no real evidence the Big Bang ever happened, none. And there is NO real evidence man evolved from some Ape creature, not one piece of evidence.

Sure there is. AND, whats more, I've posted as much already.. But, you didn't read my links, did you? Hey, ignorance does noes not make your opinion true. EVIDENCE really is more important to science than your silly little rhetorical shenanigans.

In fact, did I not already admit that SCIENCE will amend any theory upon further EVIDENCE? I guess things like that are easier to avoid than debate against.


Science makes educated guesses. Some are very good and are supported by reams of evidence to support them, some like the last 3 are weak as hell and are based solely on a string of assumptions with very little real evidence.


and YET where is YOUR evidence? EDUCATED guesses? yes, based on EVIDENCE. You know, the very same that I've already posted? Scroll up. Your opinon of what is weak as hell really makes no difference to anyone considering your refusal to abide by the SCIENTIFIC PROCESS. Again, read some Francis Bacon.



The one that does not understand how science works is you. Science works by establishing a theory, the theory is based on assumptions. Then the process is to find cooberation on as much of the assumptions as possible, proving them or disproving them, or in a lot of cases provide circumstantial evidence to support or not support said assumptions. Some of the assumptions can and are proven and are in fact no longer assumptions, but since a theory is a string of assumptions other parts remain to be proven.


HA! yea, IM the one refusing to post evidence! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Dude, I've invited you to POST YOUR EVIDENCE multiple times and you refuse to do so, Indeed, it's fucking hilarious that YOU, of all people, accuse anyone of not understanding how science works. But, I'll offer ONE MORE TIME: SHOW ME YOUR EVIDENCE that even remotely suggests that creation is true as opposed to the big bang and evolution. Come on.. Here kitty, kitty.. Let's see you break a sweat and post at least ONE piece of solid physical evidence like that which I've posted about the big bang and evolution.

DOH!

just so you know, accusing me of not comprehendinghow science works is NOT evidencethat supports your flat earther opinion. But, by all means, show this atheists up and unload your EVIDENCE as required by the methodology of Science. Again Im CHALLENGING you to show me how it's done. if YOU think you have a firm grasp on how we deduce truth from the physical observations of evidence then GO WITH YOUR BAD SELF and prove it.





Of the three we are discussing, how life began is the WEAKEST of the three. NOT one bit of the base assumptions can be proven, duplicated or forced to happen. The Big Bang theory depends on the assumptions of what certain bits and pieces of space may be or were from, again assumptions with no way to prove them. And then we have man evolved from an ape like creature.... NOT one shred of evidence exists to support it. If you want to play DNA, we must have evolved from the same thing as MICE, since they are very similar to us DNA wise. So I guess before the Ape like creature there was a mouse like creature? Not one shred of evidence. All assumptions.


You obviously don't understand why I was making fun of you for never having seen the earth rotate around the sun. Also, you must not realize that no one has ever SEEN a plate from the Earths crust move. Indeed, it's frickin hilarious that you accuse someone of not knowing how science works when you seem to think that the ONLY theories science supports is that which can be replicated in a fucking lab! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

and yes, dummy, we in fact DID evolve from the same origin of mice since all life goes back to a common ancestor. DNA is great evidence to suggest as much. Say, where is YOUR evidence that suggests that *poof* some magical ghost created man out of dust?

No, the FOSSIL RECORD is not all assumptions. But hey, if avoiding the FACT of EVIDENCE is your thing then so be it.




Evolution INSIDE a species IS proven. When one talks about INSIDE a Species there IS proven evidence it occurs. One of the best examples of that would be the Horse. We have a rich historical evidence tree to support and prove how the horse evolved.


Indeed, and the EVOLUTION whithin a specie is another piece of EVIDENCE regarding EVOLUTION in general.. Say, don't you wish creationists could say the same thing? Also, you might want to figure out how the word NOMENCLATURE is related to naming a specie. If you think an Eohippus is the same thing as a horse.. well...

KAPLOW! another piece of EVIDENCE for evolution...

What does NOT exist is evidence of one species evolving into 2 entirely DIFFERENT species. It is an assumption. An unproven theory. A theory with no actually physical evidence it happened.


yea.. you know.. as opposed to the fuckng HORSE example above! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Face it, dude... I'm going to PWN you all day long if you refuse to abide by the rules of science and offer YOUR EVIDENCE for creation isntead of trying to discount evoultion and the big bang with rhetorical bullshit. For real, educate yourself. You are conveying your own misunderstanding of the scientific method which, in all actuality, has everything to do with your complete ignorance regarding EVIDENCE that supports THEORIES which are still accepted by science in the complete fucking vaccum of creation evidence.

but, you can always drop YOUR creation evidence on me and, uh, PROVE me wrong! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You can post all the drivel you want. Explain again how the evidence of a horse becoming a bigger horse proves one species evolves into 2 others.... we will start with that.

 

[Shogun]

Specie adaptation. Genetic mutation. EVOLUTION.


Look at that time line of the horse above. Are you telling me that you would call an EOHIPPUS a fucking HORSE? DO YOU understand that the fossil record is not a collection of pre-shelty canines? How far will you go to ignore the similarity of a feather and a scale? How purposfully ignorant must to be to ignore the presence of FINGER BONES IN A WHALE FIN (which, also happens to be a mammal *SHOCKER*). The Duckbilled Platypus just HAPPENS to be a mammal with a fucking beak? God musta been hitting the bong during that creation hours, eh?

All of this: EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS EVOLUTION.


now, instead of simply talking shit with rhetorical nonsence why don't you show me YOUR evidence that equally supports creation under the necessary guidelines of the SCIENTIFIC PROCESS. show me YOUR evidence.

How many times do i have to ask you for this?

 

[Steerpike]

RetiredGySgt:

You seem to be confusing evidence with proof. The two are entirely different. Evidence can perhaps lead to proof, but in and of itself does not always constitute proof.

For example, if someone reports a robbery and says a robber in an orange jacket is fleeing the scene, and the cops come up and see you running down the sidewalk in an orange jacket, then they have "evidence" that you are the robber. But that doesn't "prove" you are the robber. If they get enough evidence, then they might get to a point where they have "proof" (from a legal viewpoint; beyond a reasonable doubt).

If you want "evidence" of evolution, then there is tons of it. Mitochondrial DNA has been listed as one. That is certainly "evidence" in favor of the theory of evolution, just like the expanding Universe is "evidence" in favor of the big bang.

None of these are "proof" and you're not going to get absolute proof of events from the distant past. The best science can do is work with the available evidence to form a hypothesis (educated guesswork), and keep testing the hypothesis and modifying it until you arrive at a theory (much stronger than educated guesswork). The longer the theory remains alive, and the more data, testing, etc. that can be done in line with it, the stronger the theory becomes.

You've been asking for "evidence," and you're getting plenty of it. If you meant to ask for "proof" instead, you aren't going to find it for things like speciation and origins of life (though for other types of evolution there is proof - remember that speciation and origins of life are only a portion of evolutionary theory, though those are the portions everyone talks about. We can see bacteria "evolve" in a petri dish).

 

[Shogun]

DOH!