Posted on 02/11/2005 6:49:09 AM PST by PatrickHenry
The room is fully furnished, dude. You can choose to discount the chairs as evolutionist hyperbole, and ignore the couch because some geek with a Ph.D. says the couch is impossible from evolution, and ignore the table because some other geek says that he has mathematically proven that the table is not there.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
There is NO SUCH EVIDENCE for design. The best they can do is make up a bunch of phony, debunked reasons why they think evolution didn't happen.
I know. Sort of Florida without sinkholes.
Black... is that a RACE???
Someone on this thread feels uncomfortable using the word race. Not PC or divisive or something.......
I know some dentists would dispute this reasoning...be sure to brush & floss regularly. :-)
Cheers!
Full Disclosure: Where can I get a "Reunite Gondwanaland" T-shirt to sell to DUmmies at leftist political rallies?
Ontogeny DOESN'T recapitulate phylogeny, unless someday the human species is going to lose its teeth. (They do seem to be getting smaller since the last Ice Age.)
Evidently, you need to read the dictionary and acquaint yourself with definitions of words and what they mean as opposed to what you'd like them to mean. There is no evidence for evolution in the manner which you intend to use the word.
None. There are things you'd like to call evidence. Problem is that when what you point at is as supportive of the opposition's points as your own, you don't have anything that is strictly evidence for evolution.
Here is your problem, the which I'm sure you can't objectively see, so I'll help you. What you call evidence for evolution, is evidence of life. There is nothing you present that your belief system doesn't spin in attempt to make it appear they have something. After all this time, there is nothing you can point to that exclusively supports evolution to the exclusion of anything else. Thus, you may have something you want to call evidence; but, you have nothing that is evidence for evolution.
It's kinda like being in court prosecuting a suspect for murder. If your evidence for murder is also evidence to the contrary, and there is no body, then the only basis for the charge of murder is speculation. In your sloppy overconfidence which you masquerade as fact, that is lost.
And it's precisely why the charge stands that you teach it as fact, not theory. You treat "could be" and "is" as though they are synonymous. They are not. And there is nothing you present that is strictly evidence for evolution to the exclusion of anything else.
If I have the sniffles, a cough, and a headache, what do I have? Well, I can tell you that based on that and no more, you can't give a proper diagnosis. Because they are symptoms for many illnesses and none at the same time. As it happens, I get the sniffles every morning after waking up. My throat is usually a little raw through the cold months. I don't have a cold, yet I have an occasional cough. And I slept on the couch last night - leaving me with a stiff neck and a headache. Are the symptoms evidence of a cold, no - but they could be if other factors could be ruled out. Are the symptoms evidence of the phlue. No; but, they could be if other symptoms were present and yet more could be ruled out. I could go on.
What you have evidence for is the existance of life. You have yet to establish that anything means that evolution has ever taken place - again noting the complication of verbiage that tends to get mistaken to mean you have any support at all.
What you're saying isn't that you have evidence for; but, rather that you have a belief for. And your belief isn't evidentiary, nor is supposition, speculation, hypothesis or imagination evidentiary. When what you have either fits multiple conclusions or better fits arguments against your position, you have a lot of ground to cover with other than theories to even begin to make claim that you have evidence for your proposition. After all this time, if you were right at the outset, we'd expect to see something that exclusively supports your position as a matter of science.
But, there again, we're talking about a belief system, not science. Most of what you bring to the table is not observable and is not falsifiable. And further, to the extent that you wish to play probability games, your predictions are as exculpatory as they are theoretical - being unfalsifiable largely in and of themselves (eg transitionals). If there can be no real confidence objectively in your predictions because they themselves are unfalsifiable, the question arises as to whether you're committing fraud or not. IMO, you most assuredly are. Saying you believe something is one thing. Passing it off as science when there is no objective, exclusive, falsifiable evidence to support the position is fraud. You may pass it off as wishful thinking in defense; but, when we're talking about the level of beligerence, dishonesty, etc that has propped up your argumentation in absence of any real proof, there is ground for not only calling it fraud; but, doing something about it.
"Thus, you may have something you want to call evidence; but, you have nothing that is evidence for evolution"
You are completely changing the definition of the word evidence.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA230.html
This is a routine creationist ploy, which has been refuted multiple times and is dealt with at the above link and many others on the talkorigins site and others.
"You CAN have your own data; but NOT your PRIVATE interpretation of data." is what I think you mean.
Am I wrong?
No, I'm stating the obvious. You have thrived on a lack of standard application of the term. Just as you have thrived on the complicated shell game with the word "evolution". Just as you have thrived on many other abuses of language that you up to now have largely not been challenged on.
Facts may be evidence of something. If they are not supportive of something to the exclusion of other possibilities, they are merely evidence of something. And this is why in crime detection, the term "possible homicide" is used when the evidence isn't clear. So, no, I am not redefining anything. I'm stating the blatant obvious in an environ where PC has become an engine of obscuring the obvious and redefinition of the uncomfortable truth.
Facts may end up being evidence for anything. Until it is established that they are evidence to the exclusion of other possibilities, the proper sentiment is that you "FEEL" it may be evidence for evolution. But feeling is not fact or evidence - it falls to the category of belief - not science. Believing something is true doesn't make it true; but, it doesn't outright disqualify belief if belief is unmet by other factors. Belief is not evidence. Evidence may support a belief; but, it doesn't neccessarily prove one. Evidence, as an example, exists that people several generations after the apostle Peter died were saying that Peter went to Rome. Does that then morph into evidence that Peter ever went to Rome - no. Would some people like it to, sure. Their belief belongs to them and no-one begrudges it. It doesn't make it right. Whether it's plausible or useful is quite another thing. But when it comes to what the facts are, what supports them if anything at all, and whether that rises to the level of being evidence for something - much less authoritative - more precision is required than "I believe" when we're talking "science". "I believe" doesn't make evidence of passing into evidence of a crime. Details are what do that. And if the details are as subjective as the "evidence", you really have nothing more than a pile of assumptions being begged off as a fact of high precision. We aren't redefining language, we're demanding that language, methodology and the like be attended to for once instead of the bowl of mush that has passed for it for so long as to make your meanderings appear to mean something.
You may believe it; but, your belief isn't evidence of evolution anymore than the believers in Jim Jones was evidence for the authority of his views.. in hindsight, it is rather evidence of cultism. And the same can be said in hindsight about the evolutionist arguments IMO.
"I have a theory: it is that GOD created the stuff we see in the 'record'."
You have an opinion. It is NOT a theory.
"No, I'm stating the obvious. You have thrived on a lack of standard application of the term."
Evidence is evidence. What evidence do you have for your position?
"You CAN have your own data; but NOT your PRIVATE interpretation of data." is what I think you mean.
Am I wrong?"
Science is analysis and interpretation of data collected from forensics, experiments and other observations. Each bit of data is evaluated as evidence that a hypothesis is correct or incorrect. If the data (evidence) leads science to conclude that the hypothesis is incorrect, it is discarded. The data is saved as it may apply to a different hypothesis.
Once a number of hypotheses are judged to be sound and fit a system, they might be given the status of theory. A Theory is a set of foundational principles that explains how a system works. Evolution is such a theory.
If a set of data refutes the theory or might refute the theory it is given further study. If the theory can be modified to include the data without losing the integrity of the underlying principles it is changed. If the data is found to refute the theory, the theory is discarded.
The difference between science and Bible is science does not blindly follow "authority". In Protestant sects, the Bible interpretation is given authority with a "private" interpretation. Creationists try to privately interpret science to fit the Bible. That is why science will not consider the creationists' ideas seriously. They violate every standard of science.
Evidence may be evidence. To argue that it is evidence for something when that is not established to the exclusion of other possibilities is not proper. When multiple possibilities exist, the best you can say is there is evidence for something. It only becomes specific when other possibilities are eliminated.
If you come upon a path in a forest undisturbed, you have evidence of absence. If it's disturbed, you have evidence of disturbance. If the disturbance includes tracks, you have evidence of passing. If the tracks are identifiable, you have evidence of passing by an identifiable critter.
It's the same path. And there is evidence in all cases. But the evidences are not all equal or all applicable.
If you can't identify the tracks you can't say there's evidence of the passing of a cheetah. These differences are not only logical, they are obvious. But it doesn't apparently serve your purposes to deal in that level of specifics because when we break it down that way, you're left empty handed.. get used to it. It's only gonna get worse cause people have had it with the ill treatment of the Evolution elitist religion community. The long reign of intolerant snobbish abuse is comin to an end.
I would say those are not necessarly the ancestors of the platypus. You only assume they are
As for the near-impossible happening more than once, your mammal ear-bone thing is just one example. Evolutionists also claim that flight independently originated in stick insects nine separate times! Here is the snippit from Creation Safaris...
Re-Evolution of Insect Wings: “Impossible” (repeat 2x) 01/16/2003
A paper in Nature Jan. 16 claims that stick insects evolved wings multiple, separate times. Whiting et al show data that seem to indicate wings were lost and then reversed repeatedly: “Such a reversal is considered highly unlikely because complex interactions between nerves, muscles, sclerites and wing foils are required to accommodate flight. Here we show that stick insects (order Phasmatodea) diversified as wingless insects and that wings were derived secondarily, perhaps on many occasions.”
In New Scientist, Whiting describes the reaction to his story: “I remember sitting down with entomologists and hearing them say ‘impossible, impossible, impossible’,” he says. But “re-evolution is probably more common than we thought”. Science Now doesn’t seem to have a problem with the impossible, either. In the report in Science News, Whiting remarks, “It’s as if a mammalogist found a whale [a former land creature] walking around on legs.”
Evolutionists are not really naturalists. They believe in miracles, too. The difference is, their miracles are haphazard and random, and the Bible’s are designed for a purpose.
How many times does the "troubling" stuff have to happen before you really get troubled?
Yeah, whatever. What evidence do you have for whatever your creationist position is?
I have heard your type of bluff and bluster before. To try to tell a scientist that the mountains of evidence supporting evolution is not "applicable" is ridiculous.
It is up to you to provide positive evidence for your position or against evolution. I don't think there is any, other than twisted definitions and misunderstanding of the Bible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.