That’s demonstrable nonsense. I didn’t reject the theory of evolution or claim that it’s invalid - on the contrary, I’ve stated at least twice on this thread that I accept that ToE is the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth.
My argument is that no one can claim to know how evolution works, because regardless of what theory of evolution is proffered, no one can prove that that theory describes the process that produced the history of life on earth - it’s impossible.
EVERYONE:
He is playing a word game with “Proof” and “Knowledge” by assuming each of these means 100% Truth and accuracy.
While this is the case for Mathematical proof, it has nothing to do with “Knowledge” or what we regard as “True;” (Justified, Empirically Based, Independently Verified, Belief.) I have shown him the Venn Diagram accepted by philosophers and scientists everywhere. Knowledge is not 100%. The truth that we know and accept is not 100%. Instead, we believe things to the degree that they are supported by facts and evidence.
No one has to say evolution is 100% true to call it true or a fact- Reference the Venn Diagram above.
Buzzy just wants to keep pushing buttons and hoping for responses. He is not a serious interlocutor. In his mind, he actually thinks he is making some kind of a point about evolution instead of stating the obvious. At no point has he offered anything that would support his alternate theory of ‘Poof.’
FINALLY: If evolution were 100% wrong. It would not change atheism or atheists one bit. You still have no good evidence for ‘Poof.’ You don’t suddenly win because you have the only theory out there. Hell, Ancient Aliens is a better theory that ‘Poof.’ At least we know there are other planets and we suspect a possibility of life on at least one of them. A rainbow farting Unicorn has the same potential of being the master of all things as does the poof hypothesis.
HEY EVERYONE: There are some things evolution has not yet explained, therefore it can not be proved. (Fuck Me.) Every theory known to science has things about it that can not be ‘proved.’ Knowledge does not require proof. Math formulas require proof.
Actually, it’s more like … the scientific community claims to know how evolution works, but it can’t prove that its theory of evolution produced the changes evident in the fossil record … therefore its claim is delusion and bullshit.
You’ve really got your wires crossed here. You’re conflating two different things, having failed to notice the obvious difference between them.
Claiming to “know” how evolution works is obviously not the same as proposing a theory for how evolution works.
Claiming to “know” how evolution works implies that the claimant can prove how evolution works … whereas proposing a theory for how evolution does not imply a proof of how evolution works - it’s simply proposing a possible explanation.
Wasting your time Buzzard. They have a tried and trusted shtick here , pretty boring as well I might add
Simply put - Where did the copying machine get the INFORMATION not to produce a copy but to produce another copying machine ?
It’s the question of INFORMATION at the heart of the matter .
If a scientist says I “know how evolution works”, he is implying that he can prove how evolution works. If he can’t prove how evolution works, he has no right to claim that he “knows” how it works. No one can prove what process produced the changes evident in the fossil record, therefore no one can claim to “know” how evolution works.
Please note that claiming to “know” how evolution works is not the same as proposing a theory for how evolution works - a theory doesn’t imply proof, it is simply offering a possible explanation.
Hilarious.
I never said I “know God ‘poofed’ the world into existence”.
Evolutionary and genetic scientists know how it works, they can even make valid predictions.
As far as individuals (which you appear to be focusing on) of course no one was there to witness slight changes many thousands of years ago. But evolution is not about individuals, it is about groups that change over time.
Did you know that if your personal DNA was tested there is a very large likelihood that you hold 1-4% Neanderthal DNA?
That is a poor argument. Calculus, germ theory and the theory of relativity are all testable.
How would you test the theory that the evolution of amphibian’s double-circulation heart from the single-circulation heart of a fish, for example, is the result of neo-Darwinian mechanisms, such as natural selection acting on mutations?
Sheldon: “One of the biggest questions facing evolutionary researchers was “why did early hominids become erect bipeds?” But by studying the history of weather and plants in that area, it was grassy plains that were once forested. It makes sense that a successful animal would learn to look over the tall grass, in order to enhance survival and find food.”
Buzzard: “Easy to say but impossible to prove. An untestable story like that doesn’t even qualify as science.”
Sheldon: “Well science seems to think it does, and that’s why it is an accepted scientific fact and a scientific theory in good standing.”
That’s true, but no one can prove that neo-Darwinian mechanisms produced the changes evident in the fossil record. Therefore no one can claim to know how evolution works.
You need to snap out the Darwinist fantasy world you live in where every theory or explanation offered by an evolutionary scientist automatically becomes the truth. That’s not how science works.
I partially agree. But no for matter who in science, any proposition is never accepted as a hard fact. I suspect you fail to comprehend that in science, nothing is definite, just a model.
Unlike your poofy god, theists claim this as a hard fact, and fail to provide any credible evidence, just proclamations. People in authority making proclamations the 'faithful sheep" do not challenge.
@Buzzard I have a question. You accept a poofed god. have you ever attempted to dig deeper, to ask what initiated the poof? What was the mechanism? Poofy magic, some radiation, Leprechauns?
When it comes down to reason and logic Verses the blind faith of Darwinist fundamentalists, the former is going to lose almost every time.
Excellent question.
And can you imagine someone trying to build a copying machine that can make another copying machine? Impossible … yet that’s what all living organisms do. Astounding.
I should think arguments for ID would attract a lot of enthusiastic support on a site like this!
I’ve been on this site for only a few days and I’ve already noticed that there’s a lot of that going on here - putting words in people’s mouths and creating stupid strawman arguments.
I enjoy how these two continually refuse to answer the hard questions that anyone asks them lol.
The same tired and old religious theatrics really bring me back to my religious hay day. It’s literally day one stuff here, we were always told just cast doubt on the irreligious ideas. Focus on a single point that might cast doubt in their mind. Also, we were told NEVER let them control or steer the conversation.
That’s why we end up with such 1 dimensional transparent arguments as these. It’s fascinating the depths of insanity here, they will continue using the same tactics like this over, and over, and over, and over again. Just two parrots just repeating inane nonesense.
Buzzy and Sid, I love this, please continue this display of laziness. Please don’t get creative and think outside your boxes it would ruin my amusement. Or if you want to ruin my amusement please answer this question.
I want to believe he will try to answer this, but that would not comply with his training. So I’m guessing he will ignore it or redirect with a question to stay in control of the conversation.
Not only controlling the conversation (and not only using tactics that are spread across the forums like spent cases on a battlefield) but doing it primarily by applying a concept to scientific theories that isn’t even used in science.
The only use that remains here is the entertainment and an example of forms of argument that stable adults avoid employing.