You've used it all thread.
To: junior
The famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero).
01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massive mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies. Another jennyp contribution.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution (Moonman62).
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.
The foregoing was just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review: The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 14].
161 posted on 2/4/02 4:05 AM Pacific by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Sabertooth
"Where is the observation or evidence of random spontaneous mutagenic speciation?" Is that not a fair scientific question?
No. It's a loaded question. You want to see an example of random speciation, when all we will ever see, in a human lifespan, is random mutation. The cumulative effects of the sometimes-successful mutations will, over time, generate a new species. If you are looking to see evidence of a goldfish spontaneously producing a dog, so am I. That would be a miracle, and I haven't seen any sign of that.
196 posted on 2/4/02 9:31 AM Pacific by PatrickHenry
To: Sabertooth
Confirmation or "proof" of scientific hypotheses depends on the repetition of experimental results.
Well, that's a partial truth. It certainly holds if you ask me to prove that water is made of 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen. I can demonstrate that, all day long. However, that kind of demonstration isn't possible, nor is it expected, in areas of science that require discovery of past events. Examples are geology (we can't re-create the Grand Canyon); and evolution (we can't re-create man from an amoeba). A more everyday example is criminal detection, as we can't re-create OJ killing Nicole. But in these historical matters, we are not helpless. We have the capacity to look at presently discoverable evidence (or clues, if you will). And we can frame perfectly rational hypotheses regarding how such clues came to be created. A good example is in examining a corpse to see the cause of death. We can't kill the person all over again, but it can be very scientifically demonstrated as to how the wounds (or whatever) happened. This is indeed science, even if some people claim it is not.
Further, an hypothesis developed in an historical science can be tested, because it does indeed lead to predictions. To continue with the crime analogy, if the working hypothesis is that the butler did it, you can then predict that the butler will have been in town at the time of the crime, and will not have a reliable alibi (sp?). In evolution, it can be predicted that if all living species today evolved from earlier species, there will never be discovered a fossil of a "modern" species which existed prior to a time when its ancestral stock existed. In other words, no human fossils wlll be found in the age of dinosaurs. These predictions are borne out every time a new fossil is found, and thus evolution is being constantly tested every day.
211 posted on 2/4/02 11:44 AM Pacific by PatrickHenry
Report Abuse ] Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Sabertooth
Even if I accept this [Just because cause and effect happens in our experience is no reason to suppose there has to be an ultimate cause outside of our experience], there's also no reason to suppose otherwise. Do you agree?
You didn't address that post to me, but your question has gone unanswered so far. I don't agree with you at all. If you want to propose an "ultimate cause outside of our experience," you should have some reason for making such a proposal, other than "Hey, why not?".
276 posted on 2/4/02 5:02 PM Pacific by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Treating my question seriously would entail a serious attempt at answering it, something you've yet to demonstrate.
You complain that my question isn't fair, attempt to shift the burden of proof with counerquestions, and tend to project your techniques onto me (twice now, with the "Hey, why not?" post, and this most recent, accusing me of ducking questions).
I'm not asking for anything difficult, just an answer to this question:
Where is the observation or evidence of random spontaneous mutagenic speciation?
You act as if I have to suggest an alternative in order to warrant an answer to your question. Hardly a scientific position.
If you want to claim that 2 + A = 5, you may be correct or incorrect. I don't need to have an answer of my own to ask you to give evidence. I don't need to demonstrate that A = ~3. If you make the claim, the burden is upon you to support it, or concede that you can't.
If you want to see an example, take a look at my post at #185. There I gave my thoughts on a mechanism for evolutionary speciation, and conceded that I don't have evidence for it. I have no observational evidence for it and the fossil record is silent. You may think my speculations a complete crock and unworthy of consideration, I don't know and it doesn't matter. I may, in fact, be completely wrong on this. So?
That has no bearing on whether you have observational evidence for your position, and the fact that the fossil record is altogether silent on how species originate and evolve.
All we're talking about here is the question of randomness as a mechanism for evolutionary speciation. That's all that's on the table.
From the standpoint of scientific inquiry, I've asked you a legitimate question.
You won't answer.
