The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[rrobs]

No, it is not a matter of "some would say". The reason that scientists came up with that particular definition of evidence is so that one could objectively say whether an observation is evidence or not. You only have to ask yourself two questions. First is the concept a testable concept. That means is there a test, based upon the idea's own merits, that could refute it if it is wrong. In the case of evolution the answer is yes. There are quite a few tests that could show it to be wrong. The second is "Does this observation support (or oppose for evidence against) the theory?" . And again the answer is yes.

Scientific evidence has that definition to keep scientists honest because they are people too and can make the same sort of errors that you make.

So, one more time. Are those skulls evidence for evolution?

EDIT: No faith needed. Calling it faith is a personal attack against scientists and one that you would have to prove. That was technically a violation of the Ninth Commandment on your part. Not necessarily lying, but definitely bearing false witness against your neighbor.

Sorry, but you are interjecting too many personal attacks and not enough actual science. I'm no closer to understanding the science of evolution then when we started. Do you have anything more?

 

[rrobs]

If you were trying to establish a relationship between a group of items would consider similarity of any value to your task?

So a similarity between an ape skull and a human skull is enough for you to believe evolution? If so, fine, but I would need something more concrete.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry, but you are interjecting too many personal attacks and not enough actual science. I'm no closer to understanding the science of evolution then when we started. Do you have anything more?

Can you point out the personal attacks you claim are in that post and demonstrate to me that they are personal attacks? I want to know.

 

[rrobs]

I should have included that fact. I am waiting to see if he can admit that they are objective evidence for evolution or not.

One thing that I like about scientific evidence is that once one meets the basics it puts the burden of proof upon the person trying to deny it.

You really think that picture of skulls is proof of evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, but you are interjecting too many personal attacks and not enough actual science. I'm no closer to understanding the science of evolution then when we started. Do you have anything more?

What "personal attacks" ? I am being serious. You are misinterpreting my posts if you see attacks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You really think that picture of skulls is proof of evolution?

You just negated any claims that you made about understanding the sciences. They are evidence and the sciences are evidence based.

If you want to use the word "prove" in the legal sense of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" then they are a small part of the evidence that proves evolution far beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[rrobs]

Ironically that statement always "proves" that the person does not understand the sciences.

You asked me to stop with the scriptures and think real science. I can say with all sincerity that I did just that. I admitted that perhaps my knowledge of evolution was out of date. Now I'm thinking it is not. At least you haven't shown me anything near what I already know about the theory. I was genuinely looking to you for answers. I may have been mistaken on expecting any additional knowledge than I already have. I told you that what I did study seemed nonsense and that still stands.

I can say this; I could show you a ton more about the scriptures than you seem capable of showing me about evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So a similarity between an ape skull and a human skull is enough for you to believe evolution? If so, fine, but I would need something more concrete.

Please,trying to use strawman arguments is not honest. We were discussing evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So a similarity between an ape skull and a human skull is enough for you to believe evolution? If so, fine, but I would need something more concrete.

I wonder if you are intentionally making this difficult. Not saying that, just wondering.

Can you show me where I claimed a belief in evolution?

Can you show me where it was claimed that similarities in fossil skulls of human ancestors is the only evidence for evolution?

Is it your understanding that education is merely memorizing answers and not teaching others to arrive at their own answers. The explanation of evolution has to start somewhere. Why don't we start with your argument and evidence for rejecting the theory.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You asked me to stop with the scriptures and think real science. I can say with all sincerity that I did just that. I admitted that perhaps my knowledge of evolution was out of date. Now I'm thinking it is not. At least you haven't shown me anything near what I already know about the theory. I was genuinely looking to you for answers. I may have been mistaken on expecting any additional knowledge than I already have. I told you that what I did study seemed nonsense and that still stands.

I can say this; I could show you a ton more about the scriptures than you seem capable of showing me about evolution.

Why don't you explain what you claim to know. We cannot know what you learned in the past.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You asked me to stop with the scriptures and think real science. I can say with all sincerity that I did just that. I admitted that perhaps my knowledge of evolution was out of date. Now I'm thinking it is not. At least you haven't shown me anything near what I already know about the theory. I was genuinely looking to you for answers. I may have been mistaken on expecting any additional knowledge than I already have. I told you that what I did study seemed nonsense and that still stands.

I can say this; I could show you a ton more about the scriptures than you seem capable of showing me about evolution.

No, you have failed to "think real science" . You have demonstrated that you do not understand the sciences. And since you do not understand even the basics of science you cannot know anything about the theory.

And please watch the falsehoods. The fact that you won't let yourself see does not mean that others cannot show you evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And to get answers one must understand the basics first. A person that refuses to learn to add cannot refute calculus.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You really think that picture of skulls is proof of evolution?

It is a piece of evidence that supports the theory. Proof is for liquor and math. Explanations and conclusions in science are contingent and not proofs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You just negated any claims that you made about understanding the sciences. They are evidence and the sciences are evidence based.

If you want to use the word "prove" in the legal sense of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" then they are a small part of the evidence that proves evolution far beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am wondering if we are playing pigeon chess here. Not saying we are, just wondering.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is a piece of evidence that supports the theory. Proof is for liquor and math. Explanations and conclusions in science are contingent and not proofs.

I tend to get a bit frustrated with people that claim to understand the sciences and then promptly demonstrate that they do not and then to add insult to injury they refuse to learn the basics when they are presented with them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am wondering if we are playing pigeon chess here. Not saying we are, just wondering.

It appears that is where this discussion has gone. Creationists hate the concept of evidence. They simply refuse to understand it. And if one cannot understand evidence one cannot understand the sciences.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You asked me to stop with the scriptures and think real science. I can say with all sincerity that I did just that. I admitted that perhaps my knowledge of evolution was out of date. Now I'm thinking it is not. At least you haven't shown me anything near what I already know about the theory. I was genuinely looking to you for answers. I may have been mistaken on expecting any additional knowledge than I already have. I told you that what I did study seemed nonsense and that still stands.

I can say this; I could show you a ton more about the scriptures than you seem capable of showing me about evolution.

Assuming that you are knowledgeable about the Bible, would you show that ton all at once out of any context or would you go with the basics for those you consider your inferiors?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Assuming that you are knowledgeable about the Bible, would you show that ton all at once out of any context of would you go with the basics for those you consider your inferiors?

"or would you go"

Except for the typo a brilliant question.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I tend to get a bit frustrated with people that claim to understand the sciences and then promptly demonstrate that they do not and then to add insult to injury they refuse to learn the basics when they are presented with them.

He did say he was open and ready to learn.

First of all, don't be concerned about embarrassing me (in case you were). Thanks to the scriptures, I have complete confidence in who I am. But thanks for the thought anyway.

Could you give me some of the evidence that is at least part of the foothill of the mountains? Try to ignore my religious beliefs and just talk to me as though I'm your open minded student wanting to learn.

You are showing some contradictions to these claims.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"or would you go"

Except for the typo a brilliant question.

Thanks. Changed it.