A little wisdom from an old man

[Eightcrackers]

But no one means that.

It's hard to tell whether this is a genuine comment or not.

There are countless books detailing the evidence that are freely available. Dawkins' Greatest Show on Earth is a good one, as is Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. They are full of information and detail the evidence.

I have posted articles from reputable scientific journals detailing evidence for evolution, but rather than pointing out why they are wrong you have ignored them.

You have said the entire community of biologists misuse the scientific method, but you gave no examples.

All you've done is make claims without backing them up.

Asking us - who are not experts - for evidence allows them to impugn the theory when we can't provide it.

That's why they ask us.

(Hypocritically, they themselves will use "go and look for yourself" when asked for evidence that their god exists...)

 

[Furion]

Asking us - who are not experts - for evidence allows them to impugn the theory when we can't provide it.

Not really.

It's as if y'all don't realize evolution has been pumped into nearly everyone who reads these "science" threads. Some even had to take university courses on it *gasp*

That's why they ask us.

You should start to consider no one around here thinks y'all are experts.

(Hypocritically, they themselves will use "go and look for yourself" when asked for evidence that their god exists...)

Here's another thing, you should stop looking for people to provide you with physical evidence. Clearly God didn't think it important to give a believer something to give you.

Not so with science.

You don't own it.

But if you do claim something it's pretty easy to take a skeptic dump on it because it's science, an open source of information.

 

[Temujin]

Yeah, this is pretty pedantic - "polar bears aren't white; they just LOOK white"?

Colour is look

The biology of the polar bear coat is pretty cool , but yes, they look white.

 

[King Charisma]

What goes up must come down, relatively speaking. QED

Being glib doesn't cut it. I take your refusal to prove any knowledge as proof you have none.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Being glib doesn't cut it. I take your refusal to prove any knowledge as proof you have none.

Correct. There is no proof whatsoever that I give a flying fart as to whether or not you believe I have a bachelor of science degree from Georgia Tech. Prove to ME you were ever graduated from kindergarten.

 

[Whatsisface]

Then you Darwinists should stop using the phrase "natural SELECTION."

I don't see why, it seems a trivial point of no consequence. Even so, do you acknowledge that no one means it in the sense of nature making a conscious choice?

It's as genuine as a vintage 1957 Chevy Bel Air convertible.

To think there is no evidence for evolution, and to not say why the presented evidence in many books and articles is wrong is such an obvious omission it's hard to think you are being fair minded.

Are you able to tell us in your own words how and when anyone, in keeping with the scientific method, has been able to observe one species randomly mutating into another species which went on to reproduce?

Why do you keep bringing this up as if it means something? It doesn't because there are many lines of evidence that don't need direct observation, but are indirect observation and all point to evolution being true. I've given examples but you've ignored them.

Examples of LACK of evidence? Can you give an example of a number that doesn't exist?

No. A misuse of the scientific method would be directly observable so there would be evidence for it. You seem to be sidestepping giving evidence it actually is happening amongst biologists.

So we still have a lot of claims from you, but no evidence to back them up. A large claim from you is that biologists misuse the scientific method and I've asked you twice now to present examples, but you've yet to give any.

 

[CrowCross]

2:02. Now you should give me one of the math profs points so I can shred it for you. Thanks.

Are you referring to Christ being crucified?
You mentioned a time stamp but failed to mention the topic and why.

 

[Whatsisface]

The following statement is not saying what everyone thinks it is saying. The miscommunication and misunderstanding of the words contributes to the confusion.

“human life has been cobbled together by mindless unguided and random processes,”

1) “random processes” are unknown processes but still processes. IOW, not spontaneous events from nothing. These are unknown processes that happen for a reason or cause.

2) “unguided processes” is a misnomer because the premise of science is that all events are caused by something going all the way back to the cause of causes. IOW, the visible universe is deterministic. Everything happens for a reason, we just don’t have the resources or technology to identify all the reasons for the processes we observe. Therefore, they are not unguided processes for nature is doing exactly what it is supposed to do based on the laws of nature setup from the very beginning our cosmos. Consequently, this supports a more deistic point of view, and precludes the supernatural.

So far generally agreed.

3)”mindless processes” is no where proven in the science literature. For if the cause of causes was intelligent then all processes in the cosmos are driven by a mind.

So far, in all that we actually know, we have not discovered anything that would be impossible without a mind behind it.

Moreover, the most complex thing known to man was the cause of causes and complexity correlates with intelligence. Therefore, scientific observations support the theory that the cause of causes was a mind.

Science would want more than this loose correlation to establish something as true. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation.

So can we dispense with all the misleading and false rhetoric FROM BOTH SIDES? The fact is that world is guided by processes, many of them unknown, by a cause that was arguably intelligent.

The best you can imply is that the world might be caused by an intelligent mind. You need far more than you've presented to establish a mind behind it all.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

I don't see why, it seems a trivial point of no consequence. Even so, do you acknowledge that no one means it in the sense of nature making a conscious choice?

No one? No one with any sense.

Why do you keep bringing this up as if it means something? It doesn't because there are many lines of evidence that don't need direct observation, but are indirect observation and all point to evolution being true.

So evolution remains a theory instead of a fact, since no one has ever verified it via the scientific method. No observation of it ever having occurred.

I've given examples but you've ignored them.

No, you have never given an example of any species being observed as having mutated into a new species and having gone on to reproduce.

 

[Caroljeen]

Being glib doesn't cut it. I take your refusal to prove any knowledge as proof you have none.

How do we know that you are qualified to judge if he gave you an adequate explanation? Do you have a degree in physics?

 

[Whatsisface]

No one? No one with any sense.



So evolution remains a theory instead of a fact, since no one has ever verified it via the scientific method. No observation of it ever having occurred.

Why do you keep ignoring my point about the many lines of indirect observation that all point to evolution being true?

No, you have never given an example of any species being observed as having mutated into a new species and having gone on to reproduce.

You are now obviously being disingenuous, I have answered this several times now and you keep ignoring the point. Why be so dishonest? If you think you have the truth, why resort to such underhand tactics?

 

[Whatsisface]

How do we know that you are qualified to judge if he gave you an adequate explanation? Do you have a degree in physics?

He was asked a specific question that he didn't answer. You don't have to be qualified to know there was no answer.

 

[Whatsisface]

Asking us - who are not experts - for evidence allows them to impugn the theory when we can't provide it.

That's why they ask us.

I can believe this is so, but it's dishonest. I don't get it, if you think you have the truth, why be dishonest?

 

[stiggy wiggy]

I can believe this is so, but it's dishonest. I don't get it, if you think you have the truth, why be dishonest?

Instead of muttering over and over about dishonesty, why not let us in on what you think is dishonest. Let me help you out. Fill in the blanks:

Stiggy is being dishonest when he said, "___________________________________," since the truth is that ________________________.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

You are now obviously being disingenuous, I have answered this several times now and you keep ignoring the point. Why be so dishonest? If you think you have the truth, why resort to such underhand tactics?

Instead of muttering over and over about dishonesty, why not let us in on what you think is dishonest. Let me help you out. Fill in the blanks:

Stiggy is being dishonest when he said, "___________________________________," since the truth is that ________________________.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

He was asked a specific question that he didn't answer.

And what question was that?

 

[Whatsisface]

Instead of muttering over and over about dishonesty, why not let us in on what you think is dishonest. Let me help you out. Fill in the blanks:

Stiggy is being dishonest when he said, "___________________________________," since the truth is that ________________________.

Why are you dishonest if you have the truth?

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Why are you dishonest if you have the truth?

Stop being dishonest. I never said I had the truth. NOW FILL IN THESE BLANKS:

Stiggy is being dishonest when he said, "___________________________________," since the truth is that ________________________.

 

[Whatsisface]

Stop being dishonest. I never said I had the truth. NOW FILL IN THESE BLANKS:

Stiggy is being dishonest when he said, "___________________________________," since the truth is that ________________________.

Stop being dishonest.

Properly reply to my point in #152 and I'll withdraw the remark.

 

[docphin5]

So far generally agreed.

So far, in all that we actually know, we have not discovered anything that would be impossible without a mind behind it.

Science would want more than this loose correlation to establish something as true. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation.

Right, nevertheless there is evidence supporting an intelligent cause of causes. It is not proof but it is theoretically possible. Again, the evidence we do have supports in theory an intelligent cause of all matter and souls in existence. It is progress, IMO.

The best you can imply is that the world might be caused by an intelligent mind. You need far more than you've presented to establish a mind behind it all.

Seems like progress to me.

The interesting thing is that according to early Christianity, the son of god, also called god, allegedly died then subsequently rose in humans. In a some sources the intelligent cause died at the foundation of the cosmos.

(Rev 13:8, YLT) “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world;”

If so, then that means the intelligent cause died at the Big Bang, his light-body transmuted to matter, followed by 13.7 billion years of senselessness (i.e. Death), before arising again as a moral consciousness in humans manifest as virtues (Gal 5:22).

IOW, the rising good son of god, also called god, is the moral consciousness found in humans. The point being that It is not a single human who is the rising son of god, but collectively ALL of US. It is us collectively rising from the grave, —the “grave” translated to be the material universe in which we live.

It is analogous to a human dying then being buried in a coffin. Subsequently, miraculously, a moral consciousness returned to the body only to discover he is buried alive. He calls out, and pounds on the lid hoping someone hears. Faintly he hears his Father through wood and earth say, “I hear you, Hold on, I am digging you out. Be patient. I am almost there. You suffered a terrible accident and everyone saw your lifeless body but I got you now. It will be ok.”

”We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:4)​