Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

The point is that these are mutually exclusive, you can't say that behe was refuted and that Behe's claims are unfalsifiable, it would be ether one or the other

It is both. The unfalsifiabile is refuted as science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The thing is that I am asking questions related to their personal views.

When I ask specific questions on whether if they accept or reject a claim people like @Subduction Zone @Dan From Smithville @shunyadragon etc tend to avoid direct answers.

For example if I ask: do you claim that hhe process of random mutations and natural selection is the main cause of the diversity of life,.... Chances say that I will not get a direct answer.

Not true. Direct answers have been given. You appear to ignore those answers. Many of your questions are improperly asked too. They frequently have false assumptions in them making them impossible to answer directly as asked. The next time you do this I will try to remember to show you that sort of error.

Oh wait, you just asked one at the end. You forgot the other processes that have been brought up to you. Your question was improper because it assumes that those two processes are the only ones, and no one here has claimed that.

 

[leroy]

Not true. Direct answers have been given. You appear to ignore those answers. Many of your questions are improperly asked too. They frequently have false assumptions in them making them impossible to answer directly as asked. The next time you do this I will try to remember to show you that sort of error.

Oh wait, you just asked one at the end. You forgot the other processes that have been brought up to you. Your question was improper because it assumes that those two processes are the only ones, and no one here has claimed that.

If you think there is an other process why don't you share it.

@ecco see my point? People like @Subduction Zone dont answer questions directly.

 

[leroy]

You do not even understand the concepts you are attempting to bandy about and never respond to requests to demonstrate your claims using examples.I

All living things are supposed to be explained by specified complexity.

The reason I am not respondíng is because I don't understand your point.

Elaborate your argument, what
is the deal about nylonaise?

 

[Astrophile]

n the same way I believe that no woman is my wife, except for the one woman that I call wife.

This seems to be incorrect. Presumably you accept that other women besides your wife really exist, and that some of them are the wives of other men, that they are not merely figments of your or other peoples' imaginations. Do you then think that other gods really exist as deities that are worshipped by but that they are not your God, or do you think that these supposed gods either do not exist or are not deities and that your God is the only real deity?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you think there is an other process why don't you share it.

@ecco see my point? People like @Subduction Zone dont answer questions directly.

This sort of rude question is why you do not get the sort of answers that you demand. I already mentioned these in an earlier post as well. I mentioned this before, but I will do so again. Gene flow and genetic drift also need to be considered.

When you ask questions rudely or improperly you are not going to get the sort of answers that you demand. If you keep ignoring answers to questions that have been answered already you are not going to get the sort of answers that you demand.

 

[Astrophile]

My response is simply that Hindus are wrong, because there are no good reasons to accept the existence of hindu gods

In the same way, I suppose that the only real woman in the world is your wife, and there are no good reasons to accept that there ever was a woman whom I called my wife.

 

[YoursTrue]

The longer I read the pro-evolution posts here, the more I disbelieve promotions about the popular conception of evolution and realize that while I don't know about everything in the Bible, I have learned about concept and ideas of evolution thanks to those answering questions and presenting the ideas about evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

The longer I read the pro-evolution posts here, the more I disbelieve promotions about the popular conception of evolution and realize that while I don't know about everything in the Bible, I have learned about concept and ideas of evolution thanks to those answering questions and presenting the ideas about evolution.

First the popular conceptions of evolution is not remotely the science of evolution. In fact in the 'popular conception of evolution' in the public is rather bizzaro, and not related to science. The real science is not popular in the layman public.

 

[YoursTrue]

First the popular conceptions of evolution is not remotely the science of evolution. In fact in the 'popular conception of evolution' in the public is rather bizzaro, and not related to science. The real science is not popular in the layman public.

OK, explain please, if you will, the popular concept of evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The reason I am not respondíng is because I don't understand your point.

Elaborate your argument, what
is the deal about nylonaise?

That is not only reason. Clearly from your statements, you do not understand the concepts You are claiming for ID.

You claim that CSI indicates a designer. Well, where is the evidence for a designer in the evolution of a trait that could not have existed prior to 1930? What the evidence indicates is natural selection and evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not true. Direct answers have been given. You appear to ignore those answers. Many of your questions are improperly asked too. They frequently have false assumptions in them making them impossible to answer directly as asked. The next time you do this I will try to remember to show you that sort of error.

Oh wait, you just asked one at the end. You forgot the other processes that have been brought up to you. Your question was improper because it assumes that those two processes are the only ones, and no one here has claimed that.

I think he asks a number of irrelevant questions as diversionary tactic to take the heat off himself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think he asks a number of irrelevant questions as diversionary tactic to take the heat off himself.

Perhaps he learned a lesson from Duane Gish. It takes longer to refute even the most absurd claim than it takes to make it. Gish knowing this would spout lie after lie and idiotic claim after idiotic claim in debates knowing that people did not have enough time in those very limited events to refute him thus "winning" the debate.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Perhaps he learned a lesson from Duane Gish. It takes longer to refute even the most absurd claim than it takes to make it. Gish knowing this would spout lie after lie and idiotic claim after idiotic claim in debates knowing that people did not have enough time in those very limited events to refute him thus "winning" the debate.

Creationist tactics. When reason and evidence were never theirs to begin with.

it is exactly the impression I get from some of his posts. There are a couple of other posters that appear to rely on post swamping (Gish Gallop) in lieu of reason and evidence on here too. I may be being a bit charitable when I say a couple of others.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you think there is an other process why don't you share it.

@ecco see my point? People like @Subduction Zone dont answer questions directly.

I know you do not answer questions directly. Have you forgotten your weeks-long run from answering questions about your claim that ID was the best explanation for universal FT? Remind me. How did that end? Oh yes.. Still no answers.S

You may want to familiarize yourself with the word hypocrisy and the accepted definition for it. Consult a dictionary or simply review your posts.

 

[leroy]

This sort of rude question is why you do not get the sort of answers that you demand. I already mentioned these in an earlier post as well. I mentioned this before, but I will do so again. Gene flow and genetic drift also need to be considered.

When you ask questions rudely or improperly you are not going to get the sort of answers that you demand. If you keep ignoring answers to questions that have been answered already you are not going to get the sort of answers that you demand.

Sure there are other mechanisms like genetic drift and gene flow but........ . I am asking you if you belive that the mechanism of random mutations + natural selection is the main cause of the diversity of life.

@ecco..... See my point, people like @Subduction avoid direct answers.

 

[leroy]

I know you do not answer questions directly. Have you forgotten your weeks-long run from answering questions about your claim that ID was the best explanation for universal FT? Remind me. How did that end? Oh yes.. Still no answers.S

You may want to familiarize yourself with the word hypocrisy and the accepted definition for it. Consult a dictionary or simply review your posts.

In fact I did respond to @Polymath257 and we are still having a conversation on the topic of FT.


By the way, based on the reaserch that you have done, which is the best explanation for the fine tunning of the universe?

 

[leroy]

I think he asks a number of irrelevant questions as diversionary tactic to take the heat off himself.

This is my tactic

1 try to understand your view

2 find specific points of disagreement

3 focus the conversation on those points.

That is why I am asking and expecting direct and unambiguous answers........ Quite frankly it doesn't seem like a dishonest tactic to me


But feel free to help me, find a specific point of disagreement between you and I and we can have a conversation on that specific point


With point of disagreement I mean a specific point,. Where I would claim something and you would claim the opposite, in such a way that we are both making and asertion and we both have the burden proof of supporting our assertions.

 

[leroy]

That is not only reason. Clearly from your statements, you do not understand the concepts You are claiming for ID.

You claim that CSI indicates a designer. Well, where is the evidence for a designer in the evolution of a trait that could not have existed prior to 1930? What the evidence indicates is natural selection and evolution.

As I said before digesting nylon doesn't require CSI... Therefore one can't infer ID in the evolution of that trait.

From what I have read, Digesting Nylon seems to be caused by Darwinian mechanisms (random variation + natural selection)


My claim is that somethings are better explained by design, not that every thing is explained by design

 

[leroy]

In the same way, I suppose that the only real woman in the world is your wife, and there are no good reasons to accept that there ever was a woman whom I called my wife.

Sure but the difference is that Christians provide arguments for the existance of God that would exclude hindu gods