If you have listened to a word I have said on this thread, you would know that I do not accept what science offers as "evidence" for the simple reason that the "evidence" presented is made to fit a false premise to begin with.
Then you just don’t know what evidence is.
"Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method."
http://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html
You have demonstrated that you have no interest in scientific evidence, given that you refuse to even examine it. The fact that you won’t examine any evidence presented to you in this thread is very telling and speaks volumes about your position.
You asked for some very specific evidence. You have received that evidence. Perhaps you could try to be intellectually honest enough to address it directly without moving goal posts or dismissing it altogether. I prefer honest discussions with people, rather than playing these silly games.
You operate from the idea that evolution "must have" taken place, when all science has ever proved is that it "might have" happened the way they say. You confuse what they offer as "suggestion to be "proof" .
Um no, that’s your position. You assume whatever your ancient book says and go from there, denying anything that doesn’t fit your interpretation of it. Scientists can’t and don’t operate in that manner.
I operate from the position of “What took place? What does the evidence indicate?” The evidence points directly to evolution. Mountains and mountains of evidence point to evolution. Like I said, evolution is easily falsifiable. Do you know how many creationists would just love to falsify it? And yet they still haven’t. What’s everyone waiting for?
Furthermore, the language and purpose of science has been explained by other posters (see Sayak’s post, above, and earlier in the thread). Science doesn’t deal in certainties and so does not use the language of certainty.
I am telling you that there is no actual proof.
You can deny that if you wish, but read any science journal on the theory of evolution to see how much "suggestion" there actually is. I repeat.....suggestion is not fact.
The power of suggestion, when it comes from an influential source, is used all the time to sell ideas and products. What makes you think it can't happen with evolution?
There is no proof in science, there is evidence. And I’m not sure how you can tell me anything about that given that it’s quite obvious that you’re not interested in examining any evidence and haven’t done so anywhere in this thread that I can see.
I’ve read many scientific articles on many subjects and guess what … that is the language of science. Not just evolutionary science either.
Your canned arguments don’t hold any water and in fact, reveal a lack of understanding, which is why most people don’t use them anymore.
You assume that it has real evidence......but what is presented to you is what science "thinks might have happened".....that is not evidence. If evolution was on trial, there would not be enough evidence to convict it.
Oh good grief. There is no
assumption. There is evidence. So, so much evidence. Biology doesn’t work without it. The fact that you’ve failed to address any of it that has been presented to you speaks volumes.
Your position is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. And the apparent refusal to want to learn anything about it at all.
Instead of cutting out this chunk of my post, perhaps you could respond to it instead:
I have to say at this point it just feels like you are projecting with this kind of talk. I’m not sure why you haven’t realized by now that science isn’t about believing things – it’s about demonstrating, testing, predicting and replicating things. You can’t just make a claim in science without backing it up, as you seem to be able to do with religious claims (and as you’re doing with your design claims). The very same science you seem to accept and use every day of your life is the same science used to verify evolutionary processes. These are all things I’ve pointed out to you before that you’ve failed to respond to thus far.
Anything that "looks designed" usually is. If it serves a purpose, someone has intended it to serve that purpose.That is just logical.
Says who? I’m still waiting for you to demonstrate this claim. I’ve been waiting for the entire thread.
You think brilliant design, when it is repeated millions (or even billions) of times in nature is just a fluke?
Like I said, that’s not evidence, that’s a claim.
What brilliant design are you talking about? Pointing out some pretty ducks doesn’t cut it. It’s a good thing scientists expect a lot more from themselves and each other when it comes to evidence.
Throw the 'ol "natural selection" blanket over it and that is supposed to explain everything.....sorry, it explains very little apart from adaptation and perhaps survival of the fittest. It has never explained the forming of one species into a completely unrelated one.
Parents pass their traits onto their offspring and the environment determines which of those traits are more likely to survive and be passed onto future generations. As time goes on and as populations become more distanced from each other, we eventually end up with many different species. That is an observable, testable claim.
You don’t accept “macroevolution,” I know. Please feel free to identify and demonstrate the existence of whatever barrier there is that stops small changes from turning into larger changes over longer periods of time. You’ll be the first person to do it.
Aren't your own responses pre-programmed? We are just programmed by different teachers is all.
No, I don’t think so. The difference is, I’m open to changing my mind if and when new evidence is presented to me. Would you say the same about yourself?
I am not speaking about the full skeletons being any more convincing than the bits of bone or teeth.
What is missing is any real link to a previous species. If you find one fossil in one country and then find a different one in a different location altogether, it is assumed that one possibly descended from the other, but again....assumptions are not facts. If the links are missing, and they are separated by continents, where is the chain?
Why bother asking for them then, if you’re not really interested in considering them? You’re not playing games again, are you? If your position is so obvious and easy to defend, I wonder why you have to play such games.
Had you to read the links I provided (that you asked for directly), you would probably know that you’re wrong to assert that scientists just make random, imaginative assumptions about how creatures are related to each other (at least when it comes to giraffes and elephants). I think it’s bizarre that you seem to think so (especially at this point in the thread), but of course, there is much more to it than that. They actually use a variety of different tools and methods from comparative genomics to anatomy to biogeography.
Someone else has already pointed out to you that scientists are able to use the knowledge acquired using these methods to make accurate predictions about where we should find remains in the fossil record, as they did with
Tiktaalik roseae – They predicted it would have probably lived somewhere around 360-390 million years ago and that it would most likely have lived in fresh water. And that’s where they found it. So if they’re just flailing around in the dark making unwarranted assumptions, as you say, how is it that they were able to do this?
Read and learn, I beg you:
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/dar...-we-know-living-things-are-related/homologies
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/comparative-genomics-13239404
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790316302676
http://www.indiana.edu/~oso/evolution/EvolMorphol.htm
If each species was individually designed and made as is, in a specific time period and location, that would be a more convincing scenario to me. I do not put a Creator into the realms of myth and magic as you seem to want to do. I see the Creator as a power who has yet to introduce himself to humankind. I have no doubt that one day you will meet him.
I don’t believe in things that have yet to introduce themselves to mankind. I’m not interested in blind faith. I’ll believe if that ever happens.
Branches of science converge because they are connected. It isn't easy to falsify evolution if all sciences fall for the same basic premise. All are looking to prop it up. All have a vested interest in keeping it alive.
I said the EVIDENCE from many multiple different fields of science converges on the same conclusion. You responded to something I didn’t say.
It’s extremely easy to falsify evolution, as already noted by several posters, complete with examples. Yet it still prevails. Perhaps you should consider why that is. Or consider the fact that there are plenty of creationist organizations that are dying to disprove evolution, and yet none of them have been able to falsify evolution either - and not for lack of trying. So don’t delude yourself into thinking that nobody is trying to falsify evolution.
Oh and just by the way, if some person could falsify evolution they would instantly become famous and probably win a Nobel Prize. It would turn science on its head.
I go with what my logic tells me. And the theory of evolution is an empty suggestion, based on a false assumption, that is full of very large holes.
There is no “my” logic and “your” logic. There is just logic. Many of your positions are logically untenable, especially the one about complex things requiring designers while making a special exception for the complex designer you believe in.
It is as short on "proof" as is my Creator, which has been the thrust of the whole thread......there is no more REAL proof for organic evolution, than there is for an Intelligent Designer....you have just been led along by suggestion because you accept what they tell you without question. I can't accept what you believe any more than you can accept what I believe. So it boils down to whose story you want to believe and why.
It's a wait and see.....
Your assertion is demonstrably false then. Repeating the same thing over and over doesn’t make it true.
Perhaps you’re the one who has been led by suggestion alone and you are simply projecting onto those who are interested in evidence and honest scientific inquiry. Maybe you should take all this talk about suggestion and turn it inward.
Science is a con job! 
