• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Irony of the evolutionary belief

C

Charles Philips

Banned
McBell said:
Please define "evidence"
Click to expand...
Reliable evidence must have many independent, unrelated witnesses, it must be supported by material and it must stand up to every critical examination by the experts. That's very different to circular reasoning whereby you must subject yourself to believe theories which have zero evidence to support them
 
C

Charles Philips

Banned
Subduction Zone said:
Oh my. Okay, you definitely need some scientific education. Like or not evolution is a fact. There is more evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for gravity. How much evidence do you need?

Meanwhile there is no reliable evidence for your personal myths. So it is more than a bit hypocritical for you to accuse others of "circular reasoning".

Would you like to learn what is and what is not evidence in the sciences? It is an easy concept to understand.
Click to expand...
The Professor failed to cite a single shred of evidence to support what your now trying to push. Can you even see how embarrassing these charges are against pseudoscientists.
You just trued to sidestep the elephant in the room, and I need you to deal with it before you present your fantasy as fact.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Charles Philips said:
All of that is based on circular reasoning and mainstream science is based on a baseless theory, where no evidence exists to support it. It just requires the victim to blindly swallow what they are fed.

I'm the kind of person who requires material evidence, I never embrace someone's private fantasy as fact.

Nobody ever recorded or produced a single shred of evidence to support the idea of evolution, it's just and desperate attempt to fill in the blanks on their paper, but it has nothing to do with actual proven fact.
Click to expand...
Please show how that is "circular reasoning".
In fact you are demonstrably wrong. One more time. Science has to be testable to be science. I can explain to you various ways that it can be and has been tested. You cannot cheat and test it with questions that you already know the answers to. That is what Kent Hovind does when he creates a hypothesis.

You appear to be projecting again.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Charles Philips said:
Reliable evidence must have many independent, unrelated witnesses, it must be supported by material and it must stand up to every critical examination by the experts. That's very different to circular reasoning whereby you must subject yourself to believe theories which have zero evidence to support them
Click to expand...
Ah you mean consilience. That is what the theory of evolution is supported by. You keep demonstrating that you have no concept of the sciences and you especially have no understanding of the theory of evolution, how it is tested, or the evidence for it.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Charles Philips said:
The Professor failed to cite a single shred of evidence to support what your now trying to push. Can you even see how embarrassing these charges are against pseudoscientists.
You just trued to sidestep the elephant in the room, and I need you to deal with it before you present your fantasy as fact.
Click to expand...
You used a lying source. It does not matter what the video says. One of Ray Comfort's favorite techniques is to edit out the answers he does not like and put in other sound bites instead.

If you want evidence, once you learn what is and what is not evidence I will gladly give you plenty.
 
C

Charles Philips

Banned
Subduction Zone said:
No, not at all. Scientists are far more independent than you realize. Now please, back off of the false accusations of others. As a Christian you should know that is breaking the Ninth Commandment.

Once again, a theory or hypothesis has to be testable and if it is not one's fellow scientists will point it out very very quickly. There is no conspiracy among scientists. "Herding cats" probably arose by someone trying to get scientists to agree to only one viewpoint.
Click to expand...
I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but I'm bringing charges against those I believe to be holding to false theories. If someone laid false charges against me, I would defend myself with counterevidence supported by facts and not baseless theories.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Charles Philips said:
I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but I'm bringing charges against those I believe to be holding to false theories. If someone laid false charges against me, I would defend myself with counterevidence supported by facts and not baseless theories.
Click to expand...
Oh my, more breaking of the Ninth Commandment.

Why are you afraid to learn what evidence is in the sciences? This is not just used in evolution, all sciences rely on the same basic concept of evidence.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Holy crap it is late. Okay, more fun in the morning.

Once again, when you are ready to learn what is and what is not evidence I will be happy to help. Otherwise you cannot but help to break the Ninth Commandment whenever you talk about evolution.
 
C

Charles Philips

Banned
Subduction Zone said:
I doubt if you do. If anyone is guilty of circular reasoning it has always been apologists. There are similar rules of evidence in anthropology and history as there are in the sciences. You almost surely have people that are guilty of the cardinal sin of have a preset answer. That is not allowed in the sciences. In the sciences one has to follow the evidence wherever it goes. If it supports the Bible then scientists would have to point it out. if it refutes Genesis they have the same duty.
Click to expand...
Again, it's all subjective to a particular school of thought, which is not open to critical examination. The problem is there are countless of opposing schools of thought, and there is no way of telling who's school is teaching lies because they all refuse to subject themselves to independent scrutiny.
 
danieldemol

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Charles Philips said:
Again, it's all subjective to a particular school of thought, which is not open to critical examination. The problem is there are countless of opposing schools of thought, and there is no way of telling who's school is teaching lies because they all refuse to subject themselves to independent scrutiny.
Click to expand...
Scientific peer review is "independent scrutiny" in my view.
In the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial the people scrutinising evolution were proponents of Intelligent Design, that counts as independent scrutiny in a court of law in my view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top