What is the biggest lie?

[SodaAnt]

@Buzzard

@David_Killens

But the theory of evolution DOES prove this process.

No, I don’t think so. A theory doesn’t prove anything.

You, of course, are quite correct here. A scientific theory doesn’t prove anything–proof is reserved for mathematics and formal logic. Scientific theories are the best description of observable natural phenomena and, unlike “theory” in common usage, are not just guesses or hunches. Scientific theories are based on empirical or observational evidence and have only risen to the status of theory because that evidence is the best possible indicator of the validity of the theory.

Some other examples of scientific theories are the theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, and the heliocentric nature of the solar system.

[Cognostic]

@Buzzard

science can’t possibly claim to know how humans and modern apes evolved from a common ancestor.

This is exactly what science does claim to know. This is what all the facts lead us to believe. All the truths, all the evidence, everything that we KNOW about the natural world. Everything we KNOW about DNA, different dating methodologies, everything we know about random mutations, everything we know about survival of the fittest, everything we know about archeology, paleontology, Biogeography, Anatomy, Molecular Biology, Embryology, Natural Selection, and much, much, more… all point to Evolution. It is the best theory we have and until you can come up with something better you are just blowing smoke up people’s asses with your; ‘You can’t prove it,’ bullshit.

Not proving evolution is nowhere near the same thing as not proving ‘poof.’ Your fallacious black and white logic regarding this issue is inane. No one has to prove anything. You don’t even have to prove "Poof,’ All you have to do is provide us with reasonable evidence for the claim. Something you cannot do.

You are making a fallacious equivocation fallacy as you pretend the concept of proof has anything at all to do with science or theories. You are fallaciously making a gross overgeneralization as you pretend a lack of proof puts evolution and ‘poof’ on the same playing field at the same level. Your conclusions are as ignorant as assuming the earth is flat.

No one needs to prove a damn thing. You, on the other hand, do need to provide evidence for the existence of your god and for the rational of your theory ‘Poof.’ You are engaged in a convoluted God of the Gaps bullshit tactic.

“Because you can’t prove evolution, ‘Poof’ is as good a reason as any.”

No. It’s not. Every science on the planet supports evolution. Every science on the planet supports evolution with facts, observation, empirical evidence, and independent verification. There is nothing holding up your claim of 'Poof." NOTHING.

[David_Killens]

[quote=“SodaAnt, post:304, topic:2329”]

@Buzzard

@David_Killens

But the theory of evolution DOES prove this process.
[/quote]

No, I don’t think so. A theory doesn’t prove anything.

You, of course, are quite correct here.

I stand corrected.

The theory of evolution DOES explain this process.

[Cognostic]

@Buzzard

So you’re saying it’s not a fact that the history of life on earth is explained by the scientific explanation - ToE?

It is a fact that the history of life on earth has been explained by science. How many times has that history been changed? The “Out of Africa’ theory is new and only created during my lifetime. There is another theory about a separate branch of human existence originating in China. There is no 'Fact” of the history of life on earth. There are theories of the history of life on earth. Why do you not understand this. Theories explain facts. Theories are models that take into account all the facts and then point to reasonable conclusions. When new facts come along that challenge theories, theories may shift, change, be added to, or even be dropped in favor of new scientific advancements. In short, science changes as it grows and learns, just like the non-religious among us, Those of us not stuck on believing the truth of a 2000 year of dogmatic text that explains everything.

[Buzzard]

@Buzzard

It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.’ (Dr. Colin Patterson)

@Sheldon

Oh dear, it seems you’re quoting false creationist propaganda

Oh dear, it seems you are talking crap.

I was quoting the late Dr. Colin Patterson - a non-creationist and paleontologist who was elected fellow of the Royal Society, London in 1993.

The quote is taken from Dr. Patterson’s letter to Luther D. Sunderland. Here is a fuller quote from that letter:

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.’

When Dr. Patterson says

“It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test”,

he is simply reiterating a fundamental principle of science - ie, an hypothesis that can’t be tested is just a worthless story that doesn’t qualify as science.

[Buzzard]

@Buzzard

All your “truth” has to offer is stories and theories and speculation.

@David_Killens

I agree, because we were not there to witness the actual events.

But to claim they are invalid because we were not there is something I reject

When did I claim your theory is invalid?

[Buzzard]

@Cognostic

Irrefutable facts are added up, considered, measured, verified independently to be ‘True,’ and the “Theory” is what the greatest minds on the planet think all of these facts mean.

The fact that a theory is not the same thing as a proof is completely irrelivant. The germ theory of disease has saved billions of lives. Gravitational theory has landed men on the moon and set our satalites beyond our solar system. The theory of plate tectonics has helped us understand our world better. The theory of relativity helped us to understand space time and predict black holes. The theory of special relativity helped us to understand high-velocity phenomena. All this is validated, empirical, and independently verified. To pretend it is not based on verifiable facts is just stupid.

I agree. Who’s pretending that those theories are “not based on verifiable facts”?

[Cognostic]

@Buzzard

I agree. Who’s pretending that those theories are “not based on verifiable facts”?

Then you aren’t saying anything. All you have done is state the obvioius. “Science does not prove anything.”

So what.

Then you have muddied the waters with your inane assertion that ‘Poof’ God done it. The two things are not connected in any way. “Poof” god done it is a claim that still requires evidence. Provide any kind of evidence at all that supports the claim “Poof.” And stop worrying about what science does or does not prove. PROOF is not the issue here. PROOF is a red harring you have tossed out here to muddy the waters. PROOF is a totally meaningless concept in science and in ‘POOF.’ Cite the evidence you have for ‘POOF’

[Whitefire13]

And this “poof” still has to explain observations of mutations and over 200,000 years of homo-sapiens.

I’m not an evolutionary biologist…just a past theist who raised the bar for the level of evidence and guess what??? God idea came up short.

[David_Killens]

@Buzzard

When did I claim your theory is invalid?

Because you have rejected the theory of evolution because, as you have repeatedly stated “we were not there”.

Despite the mountains of evidence, the careful explanations on what theories are and are not, you just desire to place it on the same foundation as your theistic “poofing” which carries zero evidence.

[SodaAnt]

Not only is buzzard railing on about evolution not being “proven”, he asserts that his “poof!” theory is correct.

This is just a fallacy of false equivalences. He’s considering evolution and “poof!” as equal theories to explain the origin of species and by refuting evolution his pet theory is automatically true.

Buzzard: what is your evidence for “poof!”?

[Buzzard]

@Buzzard

why did you state that “Humans and modern apes had a ‘COMMON ANCESTOR’” as if it were a proven fact?

@David_Killens

Because there is so much evidence that it has to be considered as a fact.
Once again … science does not claim anything as a hard fact

You claim it’s a “fact”, then you say “science does not claim anything as a hard fact” … what?

What is the difference between a “fact” and a “hard fact”?

There no such thing as a distinction between “fact” and “hard fact” in science. That’s just some bullshit you made up.

Those in scientific professions understand that any theory can be upended or altered by new data, proof, and concepts.

… which is why only an idiot or a charlatan would claim to know how evolution works.

That is how you attack evolution by offering a better explanation.

I’m not attacking evolution … I’m attacking the claim that it’s possible to know how evolution works.

[David_Killens]

@Buzzard

I’m not attacking evolution … I’m attacking the claim that it’s possible to know how evolution works.

The scientific community knows how evolution works.

[Bluedoc]

@David_Killens

The scientific community knows how evolution works.

Not only that but the “you can’t prove it so we can’t/don’t actually know it” canard is well known to the scientific community and used by those who haven’t a fucking clue how science works.

The ‘scientifically proven’ subterfuge.

[Buzzard]

@Buzzard

science can’t possibly claim to know how humans and modern apes evolved from a common ancestor.

@Cognostic

This is exactly what science does claim to know.

Any scientist who claims to know how humans and modern apes evolved from a common ancestor is delusional.

This is what all the facts lead us to believe.

Since when does one “believe” a scientific theory?

All the truths, all the evidence, everything that we KNOW about the natural world. Everything we KNOW about DNA, different dating methodologies, everything we know about random mutations, everything we know about survival of the fittest, everything we know about archeology, paleontology, Biogeography, Anatomy, Molecular Biology, Embryology, Natural Selection, and much, much, more… all point to Evolution.

Nevertheless, it’s impossible to know what process produced that evolution.

It is the best theory we have and until you can come up with something better you are just blowing smoke up people’s asses with your; ‘You can’t prove it,’ bullshit.

I believe I’ve already stated that I accept that evolution is the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth.

Btw, no one can prove that the changes evident in the fossil record were produced by the mechanisms described by neo-Darwinian theory. You seem to be having trouble accepting that fact.

[Cognostic]

Your problem is that you don’t have a clue what the word ‘BELIEF’ means.

@Buzzard

But in order to “know” that, one must be able to prove that the process one has in mind was responsible for producing the changes in life-forms evident in the fossil record … which is clearly impossible.

You are completely wrong. To ‘know’ is not the same thig as to ‘prove.’ Knowledge is a subset of belief. All you have to do to ‘know’ something is to really, really, believe it. Like you know God ‘poofed’ the world into existence. Like Christians ‘Know’ Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead.

The typical rational for knowledge is ‘Justified, True, Belief;’ howerver, this is frought with problems as each of the terms has a range of meaning. Instead it is probably better to look at ‘knowledge’ as a belief held to the degree that if it were to be demonstrated wrong, it would be life altering. Coming up with a third theory of Gravity that was better than Einstein’s or Newton’s would be amazing and send all of science back to the drawing boards. Knowledge is not Proof of anything.

I just sent a friend $100 dollars to help her get an apartment in the Philippines. She is moving and has two little girls to support. $100 dollars goes a long way. The rent is 4,000 Pesos a month and right now $100 is 5,570 Pesos. Now, I know she is going to rent an apartment. I know it. If I found out she was lying and using the money for anything else, it would severely tarnish the friendship we have and significantly lower any level of trust I have in her. I expect her to use the money to care for her kids and nothing more. She is changing jobs and moving. I fully expect that to happen. And I know for a fact that if it does not, she will likely never see another penny from me. It will change our relationship significantly. I will not be duped or used in any way and she will not lie to me. It’s that simple. I won’t tolerate it. I know, she knows this. To prove this knowledge wrong will have significant consequences for the relationship.

No one PROVED anything. That is not the way life works. Trust and knowledge are not all or nothing propositions. They are on a sliding scale. Knowledge and trust are allocated to the degree of evidence available. Belief without evidence is ignorance. Knowledge without evidence is ignorance. (KNOWLEDGE is a subcategory of BELIEF) Shall I draw you a Venn Diagram? All knowledge is belief. Not all belief is knowledge.

HEY LOOK! I don’t have to draw it. Every logic book ever written already has a Venn Diagram in it.

Please notice that (Truth) is unknowable. While we may know/believe some truth; to believe it as such would be silly as we do not know if further evidence is forthcoming.

Are you getting a clue yet?

[Sheldon]

@Buzzard

If you know how evolution works, please describe how an amphibian’s double-circulation heart evolved from the single-circulation heart of a fish … then demonstrate that your explanation is factual and not simply a product of your imagination.

I can’t explain calculus, or germ theory, or the theory of relativity either. Now think carefully, do you imagine this says something about the validity of those ideas, or is it more likely saying something about me? Do take your time…

FYI, none of this remotely validates your subjective belief in archaic superstition.

@Buzzard

My argument is that no one can prove that they know what process produced the evolutionary history of life on earth …

And I should care what you think, because? Are you remotely qualified to even comment? You’re assessment is derived from a bias in favour of an archaic superstition based on inexplicable magic. Why would anyone care when there has been an overwhelming global scientific consensus on this for almost 162 years?

@Buzzard

Speaking of superstition, here’s one … believing without proof that the evolutionary history of life on earth is the result of biological mechanisms described by ToE (aka the modern synthesis).

Do you imagine that demonstrating you don’t know, and are too lazy to Google, what superstition means, will make your subjectively biased claims more compelling?

@Buzzard

What a load of crap. It is not an “accepted scientific fact” that early hominids become erect biped because a successful animal would learn to look over the tall grass, in order to enhance survival and find food.

Straw man fallacy, since I never made that claim, you’re on a roll here.

@Buzzard

any scientist who claimed it’s an “accepted scientific fact” would qualify as a bullshit-artist and a con-man.

Well I’m happy to defer to your obvious expertise in BS, but species evolution through natural selection(which was my claim) is an accepted scientific fact. No matter how many creationists get their panties bunched over it.

@Buzzard

science can’t claim to know how evolution works.

Yes it can, and yes it does, and what’s more it is based on overwhelming objective evidence from over 162 years of global scientific scrutiny. Cry me a river, but facts are facts.

@Buzzard

So you’re saying science can’t prove that
humans and modern apes had a common ancestor.

Genetics is all we need for that, unless you think it’s a coincidence human apes share over 98% of their DNA with chimpanzees for example.

[Cognostic]

@Buzzard

please describe how an amphibian’s double-circulation heart evolved from the single-circulation heart of a fish

In the same way, Latin changed into English. Step by step over millions of years. At no point in history did a Latin-speaking mother give birth to an English-speaking child, yet this is the fallacy you hope to find. You are not saying anything. You have not found anything. You are not pointing to anything that is not already known or that has not already been considered. So says all the evidence we have available to us.

[Buzzard]

@Buzzard

So you’re saying it’s not a fact that the history of life on earth is explained by the scientific explanation - ToE?

@Cognostic

It is a fact that the history of life on earth has been explained by science.

The history is not what I’m talking about.
When I stated this …

@Buzzard

They offer an explanation that can’t be established as fact or fiction or somewhere in between

… I was obviously referring to the neo-Darwinian theory that attempts to explain the biological process that produced the history of life on earth. But you obviously want to avoid that subject and so you’ve created a strawman argument about history.

@Buzzard

I agree. Who’s pretending that those theories are “not based on verifiable facts”?

@Cognostic

Then you aren’t saying anything. All you have done is state the obvioius
So what.

???

Then you have muddied the waters with your inane assertion that ‘Poof’ God done it. The two things are not connected in any way.

???

“Poof” god done it is a claim that still requires evidence.

No,. it doesn’t.

PROOF is not the issue here.

PROOF is totally the issue here. No one can claim to “know” how evolution works without PROVING that they do in fact “know” how evolution works. That is my argument, but you’re trying hard to create alternative strawman arguments.

PROOF is a red harring you have tossed out here to muddy the waters.

herring, not “harring”.

PROOF is a totally meaningless concept in science and in ‘POOF.’ Cite the evidence you have for ‘POOF

See what I mean … this is one of your strawman arguments.

[Cognostic]

@Buzzard

They offer an explanation that can’t be established as fact or fiction or somewhere in between

Yes. They offer a fact that can be accepted as the best possible THEORY. You need to end this ‘Black and White’ fallacious bullshit you are trying to pull. Theories EXPLAIN facts. Cut the bullshit. Nothing is Proved! If you think you actually made some headway by stating the obvious ‘fine.’ Now go the fuck away. Your ability to remain obtuse and insist on being ignorant in spite of clear facts is boardering in mentally challenged.