Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)

[CrusaderFrank]

...and then the molecules formed protein and cells, and then the cells starting think for themselves and teaching evolution to their offspring

 

[scruffy]

...and then the molecules formed protein and cells, and then the cells starting think for themselves and teaching evolution to their offspring

Pretty much.

The next step is the cells decide what they want their offspring to look like.

 

[Woodznutz]

I see it's make stuff up day again.

There aren't happier. They self report as happier.

They also self report as being special children of an invisible zombie God and will therefore live forever.

Sooooo..... maybe we don't take their self reporting all that seriously.

God has blessed my life with happiness, pretty good health, and prosperity. Many Christians report the same.

 

[Woodznutz]

I see it's make stuff up day again.

There aren't happier. They self report as happier.

So, you're saying that ToE believing liberals, who are 5x more likely to use drugs, are generally less healthy, and are constantly bitching about everything, are just as happy as we conservative Christians?

 

[scruffy]

So, you're saying that ToE believing liberals, who are 5x more likely to use drugs, are generally less healthy, and are constantly bitching about everything, are just as happy as we conservative Christians?

What a stupid thing to say!

All conservative Christians with intelligence north of an octopus believe the theory of evolution.

Science is not the domain of liberals.

You should be ashamed of yourself for pushing such nonsense.

 

[Woodznutz]

What a stupid thing to say!

All conservative Christians with intelligence north of an octopus believe the theory of evolution.

Science is not the domain of liberals.

You should be ashamed of yourself for pushing such nonsense.

The ToE isn't science, it's science fiction.
Why would a true Christian believe the ToE?

A scientist explaining the ToE.

 

[scruffy]

The ToE isn't science, it's science fiction.

Horseshit.

It's the single most documented theory in all of science.

18 converging lines of evidence.

MILLIONS of pieces of evidence.

Why would a true Christian believe the ToE?

Because it's SCIENCE.

Are you one of the arrogant Christians who believes he knows how God operates?

How dare you second guess God. No self respecting Christian would do such a thing.

 

[Woodznutz]

Horseshit.

It's the single most documented theory in all of science.

18 converging lines of evidence.

MILLIONS of pieces of evidence.


Because it's SCIENCE.

Are you one of the arrogant Christians who believes he knows how God operates?

How dare you second guess God. No self respecting Christian would do such a thing.

I have no idea how God created the universe. ToE has millions of pieces of evidence that they cannot connect into a cohesive chain of events. All they have is a big box filled with unconnected chain links with no mechanism to connect them.

 

[scruffy]

I have no idea how God created the universe. ToE has millions of pieces of evidence that they cannot connect into a cohesive chain of events. All they have is a big box filled with unconnected chain links with no mechanism to connect them.

You are ignorant. You obviously don't know anything about the theory of evolution. Why are you talking about it?

 

[Woodznutz]

You are ignorant. You obviously don't know anything about the theory of evolution. Why are you talking about it?

What's to know?

 

[scruffy]

What's to know?

See?

 

[Woodznutz]

See?

I know that some on death row are convicted by "overwhelming evidence" but are freed because a single DNA sample doesn't match or some other piece of evidence that was falsely entered. Lurking in the "Jenga" tower of evolution is that single piece of false evidence that if pulled out will collapse the whole thing.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I said there cannot exist evidence for or against the supernatural.

Take some time with this statement, then maybe ask a question about it that makes more sense. I will attempt to answer.

Yes, I know what you said. So talk me through the reasoning, the deductive argument that ends "...and therefore evidence for or against the supernatural cannot exist".

Why do you think your proposition is true?

 

[abu afak]

... Where did the very first living cell come from? So far with all your lengthy posts you still have No answer.

That's Correct!
And Neither do you!
And Darwin (THE OP TOPIC) only deals the Evidence for life's subsequent evolution, NOT Abiogenesis.

And does not logically Justify Your Constant/Fallacious God-of-the-Gaps Fallacy inference.

"We don't know/Know Yet" is the most rational answer.
No need to create a new Fire, Lightening, or Fertility god for what we don't know/know yet.

God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")​

This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards. "Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?" And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner. If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.' The same...


Leo123, is a FRAUD who can never answer me, just reposts the same idiotic OFF Topic challenge/god inference.
`

 

[Woodznutz]

That's Correct!
And Neither do you!
And Darwin (THE OP TOPIC) only deals the Evidence for life's subsequent evolution, NOT Abiogenesis.

And does not logically Justify Your Constant/Fallacious God-of-the-Gaps Fallacy inference.

"We don't know/Know Yet" is the most rational answer.
No need to create a new Fire, Lightening, or Fertility god for what we don't know/know yet.

God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")​

This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards. "Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?" And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner. If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.' The same...


Leo123, is a FRAUD who can never answer me, just reposts the same idiotic OFF Topic challenge/god inference.
`

The "god of the gaps" is a scientific construct, not a creationist one. The scientific approach is to build a chain of events with many missing links, that we are assured will be filled in later. The problem is that those 'gaps' are monumental chasms not easily bridged.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

...and then the molecules formed protein and cells, and then the cells starting think for themselves and teaching evolution to their offspring

Correct. You do know your brain is made of cells, I imagine.

Same for chimpanzees.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, I know what you said. So talk me through the reasoning, the deductive argument that ends "...and therefore evidence for or against the supernatural cannot exist".

Why do you think your proposition is true?

Evidence only exists in the natural, which is to say, a deterministic universe with observable phenomena.

If A, then B. Doesn't work, when you introduce magical nonsense.

Try it yourself. Try to tell me what would be evidence that, say, a man magically levitated using the supernatural.

And, go.

See you in never. By definition, the supernatural defies the determinism and physical observations required to produce evidence for or against it.

So yes, when you introduce magical nonsense, you have disqualified yourself from any discussion of the evidence.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Evidence only exists in the natural, which is to say, a deterministic universe with observable phenomena.

If A, then B. Doesn't work, when you introduce magical nonsense.

What about if not A ? what happens then? Your statement is incomplete, here's what it should be:

If A, then B else C

Try it yourself. Try to tell me what would be evidence that, say, a man magically levitated using the supernatural.

Not having evidence for X doesn't mean the same as having evidence for not X.

And, go.

See you in never. By definition, the supernatural defies the determinism and physical observations required to produce evidence for or against it.

So yes, when you introduce magical nonsense, you have disqualified yourself from any discussion of the evidence.

Can you prove that nature is deterministic? Of course we cannot prove that we can only assume it and so any deductions are only as good as the assumption itself. What you are telling us here is what you believe is true not what is true.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What about if not A ? what happens then?

That is a question about very basic logic. I am going to let you look that up for yourself. You need the practice.

Look up "truth tables". You already have all the information you need to answer your own question.

I will check back later.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

That is a question about very basic logic. I am going to let you look that up for yourself. You need the practice.

Look up "truth tables".

I don't need to, I'm an electronics engineer and a software engineer. How do you prove that there's no evidence for the supernatural?