Well, after several threads in which the so-called 'experts' and self-anointed science wonks have lied, clouded the issue, and attacked, let's get to the truth.
I've proven that the actual physical evidence necessary to verify Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't exist. I proved it by simply demanding that they produce it.
There is no fossil evidence of serial changes from the simple early life to the advanced trilobites and brachiopods so prevalent in the Cambrian period.
I've challenged the other side dozens of times to present it....and nothing but lies, hot air, and vituperation.
1. Look, biases aside, scientists are simply people. I know, we love to invest folks with quasi-divine characteristics...doing only good, wanting only what is best for others, or for all mankind.....not the case.
Scientists are just people with careers to advance, with mouths to feed and mortgages to pay.
There is the implication that scientists only report, conclude, what the data tells them.
The Global Warming scam should disabuse any of that notion.
2. Yet, as one put it...Darwin's theory is "robust." That's true.
Want the explanation?
OK.
Here's what science was:
"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.."
Empiricism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You've been taught that, haven't you?
Philosopher Michael Devitt explains that there is only one way of knowing, the empirical way that is the basis of science.
Discuss. (An interesting quote from Michael Devitt)
a. This echoes David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding:
If we take in our hand any volume; ... let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
3. But Richard Feynman, of quantum mechanics fame, attacked philosophy often, calling it low-level baloney, and saying philosophers are always on the outside making stupid remarks. Richard Feynman: Accidental Philosopher | Issue 59 | Philosophy Now
4. Here comes the hermeneutical key that will unlock the puzzle.
While religion provided the conclusions in science early on, by the late 19th century, methodological naturalism took over:
Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, excluding appeal to the divine for explanations. Many concur, i.e., science has been a success because it eschews pointing to some sort of creative intelligence.
a. So....science is either empirical, requiring evidence....or, it can rely on logic and a philosophical basis for truth.
5. Those scientists who either refused to accept Darwin's theory due to the absence of physical evidence, or who relied on a theological explanation for the sudden appearance of species, i.e., with no fossil trail transitional evidence leading up to the species, were the era's version of 'Global Warming deniers.'
6. But...what explanation did the 'consensus' guys give? After all, they were denying the empiricism basis of science! Well, the honest ones- not the variety that I've been able to entice into making fools of themselves in previous threads-
a. Openly admit that the physical evidence doesn't exist....no fossil proof, and no observations of one species changing into another...
b. But, no matter what, no supernatural basis will be admitted! OK.
c. Instead, their faith rests on the belief that evidence will be found....or, that the theory just plain makes sense!!
And....and this may be the most important aspect....Darwin's theory is elegant. The logic, even without physical evidence, is unassailable.
Generally, when the less astute attempt to field questions about the absence of fossil evidence, it is answered with anger.
See what I mean about 'scientists' being just like other folks?
Well, then....there are two versions of science.
Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.
Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Darwin's theory support is populated with the former, the rationalists.
And lots of 'em are simply outraged if you don't agree with them.
I've proven that the actual physical evidence necessary to verify Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't exist. I proved it by simply demanding that they produce it.
There is no fossil evidence of serial changes from the simple early life to the advanced trilobites and brachiopods so prevalent in the Cambrian period.
I've challenged the other side dozens of times to present it....and nothing but lies, hot air, and vituperation.
1. Look, biases aside, scientists are simply people. I know, we love to invest folks with quasi-divine characteristics...doing only good, wanting only what is best for others, or for all mankind.....not the case.
Scientists are just people with careers to advance, with mouths to feed and mortgages to pay.
There is the implication that scientists only report, conclude, what the data tells them.
The Global Warming scam should disabuse any of that notion.
2. Yet, as one put it...Darwin's theory is "robust." That's true.
Want the explanation?
OK.
Here's what science was:
"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.."
Empiricism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You've been taught that, haven't you?
Philosopher Michael Devitt explains that there is only one way of knowing, the empirical way that is the basis of science.
Discuss. (An interesting quote from Michael Devitt)
a. This echoes David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding:
If we take in our hand any volume; ... let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
3. But Richard Feynman, of quantum mechanics fame, attacked philosophy often, calling it low-level baloney, and saying philosophers are always on the outside making stupid remarks. Richard Feynman: Accidental Philosopher | Issue 59 | Philosophy Now
4. Here comes the hermeneutical key that will unlock the puzzle.
While religion provided the conclusions in science early on, by the late 19th century, methodological naturalism took over:
Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, excluding appeal to the divine for explanations. Many concur, i.e., science has been a success because it eschews pointing to some sort of creative intelligence.
a. So....science is either empirical, requiring evidence....or, it can rely on logic and a philosophical basis for truth.
5. Those scientists who either refused to accept Darwin's theory due to the absence of physical evidence, or who relied on a theological explanation for the sudden appearance of species, i.e., with no fossil trail transitional evidence leading up to the species, were the era's version of 'Global Warming deniers.'
6. But...what explanation did the 'consensus' guys give? After all, they were denying the empiricism basis of science! Well, the honest ones- not the variety that I've been able to entice into making fools of themselves in previous threads-
a. Openly admit that the physical evidence doesn't exist....no fossil proof, and no observations of one species changing into another...
b. But, no matter what, no supernatural basis will be admitted! OK.
c. Instead, their faith rests on the belief that evidence will be found....or, that the theory just plain makes sense!!
And....and this may be the most important aspect....Darwin's theory is elegant. The logic, even without physical evidence, is unassailable.
Generally, when the less astute attempt to field questions about the absence of fossil evidence, it is answered with anger.
See what I mean about 'scientists' being just like other folks?
Well, then....there are two versions of science.
Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.
Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Darwin's theory support is populated with the former, the rationalists.
And lots of 'em are simply outraged if you don't agree with them.
