Why every rational person must accept evolution

[orogenicman]

Can you believe he claims to be a PhD geologist? Me neither...

Show me where I have ever claimed to have a PhD. I know you aren't even though you claim to be.

Uh oh, you've forgotten your carefully created "history" already! I haven't. In fact I know exactly where that post is..... want to see it?

By all means. Show me the post where I claimed to be a PhD in geology. (this should be good).

 

[orogenicman]

Shall I continue?

the question is, when will you start.....

I already have. Your problem is that you never have (started, that is).

 

[PostmodernProph]

is this the best you have to offer?.....

 

[orogenicman]

is this the best you have to offer?.....

Is the fact that you have never answered any of my questions the best YOU have to offer? Oh dear.

 

[PostmodernProph]

apparently we are both reading different threads......but to be fair.....what question do you wish answered that you believe has not been?....

 

[orogenicman]

apparently we are both reading different threads......but to be fair.....what question do you wish answered that you believe has not been?....

Apparently you have selective amnesia. Too bad for you.

 

[PostmodernProph]

/shrugs....no matter....from what I see you'll probably be starting another thread to repeat the same claims disproven here.......we will have more opportunity to discuss it.....

 

[orogenicman]

What, exactly, do you believe has been disproven here? Don't be coy. Give us the specifics of your claim.

 

[Politico]

Neither has been disproven or proven. Theories can't be.

 

[orogenicman]

Neither has been disproven or proven. Theories can't be.

A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time. A scientific theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon, while a scientific law is a mathematical description of an observed phenomenon.http://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html

 

[Politico]

Only someone who was there can definitively say how we came to be. Since is umm no one here on the internets was their theories are just that. Trust me I want to know the real answer. Unfortunately there will never be one.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Politico doesn't know shit about science. Just another conservative moron.

 

[orogenicman]

Only someone who was there can definitively say how we came to be. Since is umm no one here on the internets was their theories are just that. Trust me I want to know the real answer. Unfortunately there will never be one.

That's like saying we can't determine the guilty party in a murder case if someone wasn't there to witness the crime. Of course, that notion simply isn't true.

 

[PostmodernProph]

What, exactly, do you believe has been disproven here? Don't be coy. Give us the specifics of your claim.

the claim that macro-evolution meets the requirements of the scientific method.....

 

[orogenicman]

What, exactly, do you believe has been disproven here? Don't be coy. Give us the specifics of your claim.

the claim that macro-evolution meets the requirements of the scientific method.....

You'd have to be scientifically pre-literate (and willfully ignorant) to believe that you've disproven anything in that regard, particularly as you've still not given us any specifics that support your claim, nor given us an alternative that better explains the facts.

 

[PostmodernProph]

What, exactly, do you believe has been disproven here? Don't be coy. Give us the specifics of your claim.

the claim that macro-evolution meets the requirements of the scientific method.....

You'd have to be scientifically pre-literate (and willfully ignorant) to believe that you've disproven anything in that regard, particularly as you've still not given us any specifics that support your claim, nor given us an alternative that better explains the facts.

I have shown the definition of the scientific method....
I have isolated that aspect of the scientific method which is not met by the claim of macro-evolution....
my statement is well proven.....

to counter the argument you merely need to show an experiment that contradicts it......

at that point you ceded the argument.....

the alternative that better explains the facts is that macro-evolution does NOT meet the requirements of the scientific method....

 

[Steven_R]

Tiktaalik rosae ring any bells?

Based on the evidence at hand, paleontologists predicted they would find a transitional fossil with characteristics of both fish and amphibians at such and such time period. Sure enough, they did. They had a hypothesis and made a testable prediction.

 

[orogenicman]

the claim that macro-evolution meets the requirements of the scientific method.....

You'd have to be scientifically pre-literate (and willfully ignorant) to believe that you've disproven anything in that regard, particularly as you've still not given us any specifics that support your claim, nor given us an alternative that better explains the facts.

I have shown the definition of the scientific method....

Thank you for giving me a definition about which I am already aware, Mr. Obvious.

I have isolated that aspect of the scientific method which is not met by the claim of macro-evolution....
my statement is well proven.....

That's a laugh. Well proven? You have made an unsupported claim and called it well proven. In order to disprove macroevolution, you have to discredit 150 years of hard-won and completely accepted scientific research. You haven't even come close to doing that for ANY of the evidence.

to counter the argument you merely need to show an experiment that contradicts it......

Not at all. Evolution is an accepted scientific paradigm here. As such, it needs no defending. You are the one who needs to counter the argument with valid scientific evidence that refutes it. Have at it, pal.

the alternative that better explains the facts is that macro-evolution does NOT meet the requirements of the scientific method....

Science doesn't work that way. Even were it conceded that you somehow miraculously refuted the theory of evolution, such a refutation is not enough. The facts are still in evident. As such, you need to present an argument that better explains those facts than does the theory of evolution. Got ANYTHING like that? Anything at all?

 

[PostmodernProph]

That's a laugh. Well proven? You have made an unsupported claim and called it well proven. In order to disprove macroevolution, you have to discredit 150 years of hard-won and completely accepted scientific research. You haven't even come close to doing that for ANY of the evidence.

I have pointed out that macro-evolution has never been subject to experimentation.....you have had plenty of opportunity to provide evidence of an experiment, but have not been able to.....one would think that with 150 years of research they ought to have been able to conduct at least one experiment, don't you think?....

the problem is, in this one area of scientific study you have chosen to suspend the requirements of the scientific method.......the reason for that is your faith demands it.....

Science doesn't work that way.

I think we all agree with how science works....the issue is, why don't you acknowledge the way science works has not been applied to this question.....

 

[orogenicman]

That's a laugh. Well proven? You have made an unsupported claim and called it well proven. In order to disprove macroevolution, you have to discredit 150 years of hard-won and completely accepted scientific research. You haven't even come close to doing that for ANY of the evidence.

I have pointed out that macro-evolution has never been subject to experimentation.....you have had plenty of opportunity to provide evidence of an experiment, but have not been able to.....one would think that with 150 years of research they ought to have been able to conduct at least one experiment, don't you think?....

And I have shown time and time again that you are a liar.

Science doesn't work that way.

I think we all agree with how science works....the issue is, why don't you acknowledge the way science works has not been applied to this question.....[/QUOTE]

I don't think you have a clue as to how science works. Otherwise, we would not be in disagreement here.