Why every rational person must accept evolution

[PostmodernProph]

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

I'm not debating an article......state your argument in your own words or admit you are wrong.....at least pick one of your 29+ and defend it.....

 

[orogenicman]

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

I'm not debating an article......state your argument in your own words or admit you are wrong.....at least pick an example and defend it.....

ENOUGH! I'm not going to play your games. You don't get to ignore the facts and then declare someone wrong.

 

[PostmodernProph]

are any of your "29+ evidences" anything that amounts to more than circular reasoning?....."we have concluded that X is caused by macro-evolution, therefore X is proof of macro-evolution"......

 

[PostmodernProph]

ENOUGH! I'm not going to play your games.

my game is honest debate and you're not going to play.....

You don't get to ignore the facts

so......show me a fact.....

and then declare someone wrong.

logic declares you are wrong......your refusal to defend your claims by providing evidence seals it....

 

[PostmodernProph]

come on.....give it a try....you ought to be able to find at least one of the 29+ that you think isn't a circular argument.......maybe.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

how about atavisms......you guys like atavisms, right?.....of course, then you'd have to explain why you don't think humans evolved from a species of Siamese twins......

 

[westwall]

ENOUGH! I'm not going to play your games.

my game is honest debate and you're not going to play.....

You don't get to ignore the facts

so......show me a fact.....

and then declare someone wrong.

logic declares you are wrong......your refusal to defend your claims by providing evidence seals it....

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

 

[orogenicman]

are any of your "29+ evidences" anything that amounts to more than circular reasoning?......

Indubitably. But you didn't bother to read them, or to point out which are circular reasoning and why, so obviously you don't know it for yourself.

 

[orogenicman]

ENOUGH! I'm not going to play your games.

my game is honest debate and you're not going to play.....

When you decide to be honest, do let me know.

You don't get to ignore the facts

so......show me a fact.....

I suggest you review the thread.

and then declare someone wrong.

logic declares you are wrong......your refusal to defend your claims by providing evidence seals it....

Again, here we have you willfully ignoring the mountain of evidence discovered by thousands of scientists, and you dare to declare your ignorance to be logical. That's just tragic.

 

[orogenicman]

ENOUGH! I'm not going to play your games.

my game is honest debate and you're not going to play.....


so......show me a fact.....

and then declare someone wrong.

logic declares you are wrong......your refusal to defend your claims by providing evidence seals it....

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.

 

[PostmodernProph]

are any of your "29+ evidences" anything that amounts to more than circular reasoning?......

Indubitably. But you didn't bother to read them, or to point out which are circular reasoning and why, so obviously you don't know it for yourself.

lol....I've read and debated them on boards like this many times......you?.....can you even articulate a defense for your argument or are you limited to pointing and saying "look over there, those guys could win a debate with you if they were here!".........

the problem with debates like that is that after I spend the time disproving one of these "29+ evidences" folks like you simply sit back and say "yeah? So what! There's 28 more where that came from"......meanwhile you add nothing to the conversation......I'm tired of simply proving the guy who wrote the article didn't understand what he was saying......I want live meat......

 

[PostmodernProph]

I suggest you review the thread.

I suggest you show me a single experiment.....

to say you are basing it on expectations, then to manufacture the expectations and claim success is circular reasoning....

if a human tail is an atavism showing that we evolved from a creature with a tail, what does an occasional sixth finger tell us of our distant ancestors?....where is the six fingered fossil?.....for that matter, where is the tailed fossil?.....

why are bones in whales fins evidence they used to have legs......why can't it simply be evidence that their designer thought their fins would work better with more structural support?.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

remember that the scientific method requires repetitive testing.....if an hypothesis is tested and fails, it disproves the hypothesis.....

so if one argues that atavisms are evidence of macro-evolution, and someone experiments (or in your case, observes) that a particular atavism contradicts the claim of macro-evolution, then it proves the hypothesis false......just as the identification of a black swan disproved the hypothesis "all swans are white" in Popper's example.....as contradictions disprove the hypothesis it must be amended and retested.....until it finally becomes....."all those atavisms which have not already been shown to NOT be evidence of macro-evolution are still evidence of macro-evolution"........see what's happening here?.....

all evidences, except those which do not support my conclusions, support my conclusions........circular reasoning......

 

[ScienceRocks]

Plate tectonics also can't be tested in the lab within the same way as it happens in nature.
Relativity over long distances can't be tested in lab...
String theory = can't be tested in lab
The theory concept of the big bang can't be recreated
A large percentage of modern science is this way...

Of course another thing called god also can't either.

 

[PostmodernProph]

plate tectonics can be measured with instruments.....everything about the Big Bang that happened following its "bang" can be measured with instruments.....

relativity, string theory, and that which happened BEFORE the Big Bang, like macro-evolution aren't falsifiable.....

 

[orogenicman]

are any of your "29+ evidences" anything that amounts to more than circular reasoning?......

Indubitably. But you didn't bother to read them, or to point out which are circular reasoning and why, so obviously you don't know it for yourself.

lol....I've read and debated them on boards like this many times......you?.....can you even articulate a defense for your argument or are you limited to pointing and saying "look over there, those guys could win a debate with you if they were here!".........

the problem with debates like that is that after I spend the time disproving one of these "29+ evidences" folks like you simply sit back and say "yeah? So what! There's 28 more where that came from"......meanwhile you add nothing to the conversation......I'm tired of simply proving the guy who wrote the article didn't understand what he was saying......I want live meat......

The problem with people like you is that you refuse to accept any evidence presented to you (which is yet another reason why I mostly no longer bother), being totally anti-evolution, refuse to present any alternative theory (or the evidence to support it) that better explains the evidence you refuse to acknowledge, claim to have logic on their side while clearly not understanding anything about the topic at hand, claim to disprove any evidence presented while not actually providing any evidence of said refutations....

In other words, there is no debate here. There is only you demonstrating your dishonesty. Shall I continue?

 

[orogenicman]

plate tectonics can be measured with instruments.....everything about the Big Bang that happened following its "bang" can be measured with instruments.....

relativity, string theory, and that which happened BEFORE the Big Bang, like macro-evolution aren't falsifiable.....

Relativity (both general and special) have been tested many times and found to be true many times. String theory hasn't been tested, but scientists are working on developing experiments for those theories. To suggest that "before the Big Bang" is not falsifiable is a meaningless statement if the intention here is to suggest that that means that the Big Bang theory is also not falsifiable, since the Big bang is not about what came before. Furthermore, since the big bang occurred at t=0, to suggested that there was anything prior to t=0 is meaningless. Macroevolution is falsifiable. If you can find a dog giving birth to a cat, THAT would falsify macroevolution.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Shall I continue?

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

 

[westwall]

my game is honest debate and you're not going to play.....


so......show me a fact.....



logic declares you are wrong......your refusal to defend your claims by providing evidence seals it....

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?

 

[westwall]

Indubitably. But you didn't bother to read them, or to point out which are circular reasoning and why, so obviously you don't know it for yourself.

lol....I've read and debated them on boards like this many times......you?.....can you even articulate a defense for your argument or are you limited to pointing and saying "look over there, those guys could win a debate with you if they were here!".........

the problem with debates like that is that after I spend the time disproving one of these "29+ evidences" folks like you simply sit back and say "yeah? So what! There's 28 more where that came from"......meanwhile you add nothing to the conversation......I'm tired of simply proving the guy who wrote the article didn't understand what he was saying......I want live meat......

The problem with people like you is that you refuse to accept any evidence presented to you (which is yet another reason why I mostly no longer bother), being totally anti-evolution, refuse to present any alternative theory (or the evidence to support it) that better explains the evidence you refuse to acknowledge, claim to have logic on their side while clearly not understanding anything about the topic at hand, claim to disprove any evidence presented while not actually providing any evidence of said refutations....

In other words, there is no debate here. There is only you demonstrating your dishonesty. Shall I continue?

The problem with people like you is you don't KNOW what evidence is. Scientific evidence is measurable and falsifiable. That's the POINT OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD! It is not SUBJECTIVE!

You present opinion and computer models as if they are evidence. THEY ARE NOT!