Why every rational person must accept evolution

[PostmodernProph]

Better then having your whole belief system based on belief.

why do you think your belief system is any different?......

 

[PostmodernProph]

The theory of evolution is mainstream science. So what is your point?

that an ad populum argument does not win a debate.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

So you will be lying for Jesus, then. As a matter of fact, of the two of us, I am the ONLY one demonstrating any knowledge of biology on this thread. As for your other lie that I ran away from anything, unlike you, I don't live in a vacuum. You want me to provide you with evidence of macroevolution that 1) I have already provided, and 2) is redundant in the first place since there is already a mountain of evidence available for your perusal if you'd only get off your sorry ass and look for it.

a shift from ad populum to ad hominum.....does not bode well for your success in this debate.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Honestly how do you explain the many different kinds of the same species of insects or birds?

its called evolution......

 

[PostmodernProph]

There is no "except". Dismissing it as a belief doesn't make it so, nor does it make it wrong.

agreed....the point is, believing in something in the absence of evidence is faith, not science.....

So you freely admit that you have no evidence for your beliefs. Yet you expect me to have evidence for mine. Interesting hypocrisy.

nothing hypocritical on my part....I don't expect you to have evidence of your beliefs......I only expect you to have evidence if you claim it's science......on which you should agree, if you are not hypocritical......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Except that it has.

if it is falsifiable then you should be able to provide an example of at least one successful experimentation......we both know you aren't going to be able to do that......

 

[PostmodernProph]

with respect to what scientists know to be true based on 150 years of scientific discovery.

and yet, therein lies the problem......since it has never been demonstrated it remains nothing other than an opinion.....it has not been proven even once by the scientific method.....it is not "known to be true" and to claim it is remains nothing more than a statement of your religious doctrine......

 

[PostmodernProph]

What debate, where? Natural selection is not random.

??...it is, by definition, random......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Designed to perform? By who?

obviously, by it's creator.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

the overwhelming evidence.

unfortunately, none of which is available yet......

 

[PostmodernProph]

There is no evidence that life cannot happen on its own.

and there is no evidence it ever has.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

God of the gaps argument. Next.

as opposed to a Science with gaps argument?.....

 

[orogenicman]

There is no evidence that life cannot happen on its own. It is not bullheadedness that leads to this conclusion. Why? Because for life not to be able to happen on its own, there has to be evidence that 1) that is the case, and 2) that something specific assists it in happening.

Got anything like that?

God of the gaps argument. Next.

Anything but God argument. I'm not out to prove anything to a fundamentaist atheist. I said why I am convinced there is a God and apparently it makes your panties bunch up. For me, there has to be a reason something happens. Things don't happen on their own. apparently for you, magic is good enough and you cloak it with condescention.

It isn't even a "god or not" issue, though a lot of people would like to believe that it is. It is a "what's the evidence" issue. You people somehow believe that for evolution to be true, that means it is saying that there is no god. What I am telling you is that whether or not god is real, evolution is a fact. A lot of people, including scientists, who agree that evolution is a fact, are religious. The father of genetics, Gregor Mendel, was an Augustinian friar.

And Mr. Weasel, natural selection is not magic. Talking snakes - that's magic.

 

[PostmodernProph]

You people somehow believe that for evolution to be true, that means it is saying that there is no god.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I can clearly state that this is NOT what I believe.....my argument is simply this.....if you want to claim that macro-evolution is science, it has to comply with the requirements of the scientific method......at this point, it certainly does not......

 

[orogenicman]

You people somehow believe that for evolution to be true, that means it is saying that there is no god.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I can clearly state that this is NOT what I believe.....my argument is simply this.....if you want to claim that macro-evolution is science, it has to comply with the requirements of the scientific method......at this point, it certainly does not......

Simply making this claim of yours, that macroevolution does not comply with the requirements of the scientific method doesn't make it so. Now it is your turn to provide compelling evidence that your claim is the right one. I eagerly await your response (this should be good).

 

[PostmodernProph]

Simply making this claim of yours, that macroevolution does not comply with the requirements of the scientific method doesn't make it so. Now it is your turn to provide compelling evidence that your claim is the right one. I eagerly await your response (this should be good).

I already have, but I have no problem doing it again.....

my claim is that macro-evolution does not comply with the requirements of the scientific method.....

the requirements of the scientific method are (from the website you cited).....

What is the scientific method?
The scientific method is a fundamental procedure for conducting science composed of four basic steps. I have seen this worded in many different ways, but they all fundamentally mean the same thing. Here it is in my own words:

Observation - This is the process of taking measurements of the subject in question and defining the nature of the problem.
Hypothesis - Form a theory that explains the observations based on previously known and accepted ideas.
Prediction - Using the hypothesis, deduce the possibility of potential observations not yet known.
Experiment - Design and perform a test to verify or refute the predictions.

Generally, this is an iterative process, that is, it is done over and over and over. The results of the experiment are combined with the previous observations and the whole lot goes through the process again.

If the results of the test verify the predictions of the hypothesis, the theory is supported. The hypothesis remains the same, but new predictions must be made to attempt to find holes in the theory.

If the results refute the predictions of the hypothesis, the hypothesis is in error. At this point, the hypothesis is adjusted to explain both the previous observations and the new observations.

if no test can be conducted to verify or refute the predictions made, then the hypothesis is not falsifiable under the scientific method.....

no test can be conducted to verify or refute the claims of macro-evolution.....

therefore, macro-evolution does not meet the requirements of the scientific method.....

I believe that satisfies the condition you set down, does it not?......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Falsifiability, particularly testability, is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The concept was made popular by Karl Popper in his philosophical analysis of the scientific method. Popper concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is "scientific" only if it is, among other things, falsifiable. That is, falsifiability is a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for scientific ideas. Popper asserted that unfalsifiable statements are non-scientific, although not without relevance. For example, meta-physical or religious propositions have cultural or spiritual meaning, and the ancient metaphysical and unfalsifiable idea of the existence of atoms has led to corresponding falsifiable modern theories. A falsifiable theory that has withstood severe scientific testing is said to be corroborated by past experience, though in Popper's view this is not equivalent with confirmation and does not guarantee that the theory is true or even partially true.

Falsifiability

 

[PostmodernProph]

(this should be good).

it was good for me, was it good for you?.....

 

[orogenicman]

Simply making this claim of yours, that macroevolution does not comply with the requirements of the scientific method doesn't make it so. Now it is your turn to provide compelling evidence that your claim is the right one. I eagerly await your response (this should be good).

I already have, but I have no problem doing it again.....

my claim is that macro-evolution does not comply with the requirements of the scientific method.....

the requirements of the scientific method are (from the website you cited).....

What is the scientific method?
The scientific method is a fundamental procedure for conducting science composed of four basic steps. I have seen this worded in many different ways, but they all fundamentally mean the same thing. Here it is in my own words:

Observation - This is the process of taking measurements of the subject in question and defining the nature of the problem.
Hypothesis - Form a theory that explains the observations based on previously known and accepted ideas.
Prediction - Using the hypothesis, deduce the possibility of potential observations not yet known.
Experiment - Design and perform a test to verify or refute the predictions.

Generally, this is an iterative process, that is, it is done over and over and over. The results of the experiment are combined with the previous observations and the whole lot goes through the process again.

If the results of the test verify the predictions of the hypothesis, the theory is supported. The hypothesis remains the same, but new predictions must be made to attempt to find holes in the theory.

If the results refute the predictions of the hypothesis, the hypothesis is in error. At this point, the hypothesis is adjusted to explain both the previous observations and the new observations.

if no test can be conducted to verify or refute the predictions made, then the hypothesis is not falsifiable under the scientific method.....

no test can be conducted to verify or refute the claims of macro-evolution.....

therefore, macro-evolution does not meet the requirements of the scientific method.....

I believe that satisfies the condition you set down, does it not?......

Except that your claims (and your conclusion) above are demonstrably false, which would be apparent to you if you would spend an evening studying even a fraction of the vast amount of data available on the topic. The fact is that macroevolution is a valid part of the scientific theory of evolution. No amount of wiggling on your part is going to ever change that fact.

Start here:

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

 

[PostmodernProph]

Except that your claims (and your conclusion) above are demonstrably false

I expect then you intend to demonstrate?......do you have hidden somewhere an experiment that has demonstrated that a single celled organism has evolved into a multi-celled organism?......please share it with us.......