The watchmaker

[Jose Fly]

@nPeace I'll say it again......this is very simple. How can you make any claims at all about the existence/non-existence of "transitional fossils" when you don't even know what a "transitional fossil" is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is there a difference between Scientific evidence and evidence?

Scientific evidence is a better defined concept. Some people will argue about whether something is "evidence" or not, but whether something is scientific evidence or not is much clearer.

Also scientific evidence allows hypotheses and theories to be tested. If you understood the concept and could be honest you would have to admit that there is almost endless scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution and no scientific evidence at all that supports creationism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@nPeace I'll say it again......this is very simple. How can you make any claims at all about the existence/non-existence of "transitional fossils" when you don't even know what a "transitional fossil" is?

Perhaps he needs to get into a shorter river.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's a good thing I have patience.
You say I am wrong, but have not been able to prove me wrong, but I must say I am dishonest and wrong. I'm not the one who can't debate.
You guys are lacking seriously in ability to show that someone is wrong.
I'm not the one burying my head in the sand.
Should I throw the same thing over and over again, and you just close your eyes and duck, and pretend you saw nothing, and then keep parroting your previous statements.

I already told you, I don't like Merry-Go-Rounds.
Why don't you show me that I am wrong, instead of screaming for me to take your view.

I said what I said, and I showed why.
I'd appreciated if you did the same. Thanks.

How can someone even judge another of dishonesty. I mean, are there gods on these forums?

What else is there to demonstrate? You said that there are no transitional fossils, and I showed you a list containing thousands of them.

You were wrong, and I've demonstrated it.

 

[nPeace]

Scientific evidence is a better defined concept. Some people will argue about whether something is "evidence" or not, but whether something is scientific evidence or not is much clearer.

Also scientific evidence allows hypotheses and theories to be tested. If you understood the concept and could be honest you would have to admit that there is almost endless scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution and no scientific evidence at all that supports creationism.

Okay. So you are looking at scientific evidence, and you are dealing with the theory of evolution. Correct?
Could you give me the evidence for the idea that all life descended from one common ancestor?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay. So you are looking at scientific evidence, and you are dealing with the theory of evolution. Correct?
Could you give me the evidence for the idea that all life descended from one common ancestor?

Sure that is seen in DNA. If there were multiple root ancestors there is no reason for them all to use DNA, there are other method possible ways to preserve genetic information. This article deals with some of the alternatives:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21720-move-over-dna-six-new-molecules-can-carry-genes/

And of course one needs to form a testable hypothesis, that is a reasonable hypothesis that would falsify the claim of common descent if it failed to be able to claim one has evidence. If a form of life was found that did not rely on RNA/DNA that would indicate multiple ancestors.

So would vastly different DNA that did not demonstrate a nested hierarchy. In fact if creationism was true there would be no reason that phylogeny could not be violated. A violation of phylogeny, the nested hierarchy would be very bad news for evolution.

 

[Jose Fly]

Okay. So you are looking at scientific evidence, and you are dealing with the theory of evolution. Correct?
Could you give me the evidence for the idea that all life descended from one common ancestor?

How bizarre.

 

[nPeace]

Sure that is seen in DNA. If there were multiple root ancestors there is no reason for them all to use DNA, there are other method possible ways to preserve genetic information. This article deals with some of the alternatives:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21720-move-over-dna-six-new-molecules-can-carry-genes/

And of course one needs to form a testable hypothesis, that is a reasonable hypothesis that would falsify the claim of common descent if it failed to be able to claim one has evidence. If a form of life was found that did not rely on RNA/DNA that would indicate multiple ancestors.

So would vastly different DNA that did not demonstrate a nested hierarchy. In fact if creationism was true there would be no reason that phylogeny could not be violated. A violation of phylogeny, the nested hierarchy would be very bad news for evolution.

So is your response to my question, that because all living things carry RNA-DNA that it is evidence for common descent from one ancestor?
You are not very clear, so forgive me if I am putting words in your mouth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So is your response to my question, that because all living things carry RNA-DNA that it is evidence for common descent from one ancestor?
You are not very clear, so forgive me if I am putting words in your mouth.

Since there are other possible ways for genetic information to be passed on, and we do not see it, yes that makes that evidence for common descent. Though it is not the only evidence.

You appear to be having trouble with the concept of evidence.

 

[Jose Fly]

A Formal Test of the Theory of Universal Common Ancestry

 

[nPeace]

Since there are other possible ways for genetic information to be passed on, and we do not see it, yes that makes that evidence for common descent. Though it is not the only evidence.

You appear to be having any trouble with the concept of evidence.

I don't think I am having trouble. You appear to be worried.

Reproduction is an ongoing process which we came and found.
It is not evidence that all life descendant from one UCA.

All living things depend upon carbon dioxide, oxygen, energy, phosphorus, hydrogen, nitrogen...
We do not use that to say it is evidence that all life descendant from one UCA.
Why not?

This is not evidence that verifies anything about common descent.

 

[nPeace]

A Formal Test of the Theory of Universal Common Ancestry

Nothing there.
The links don't reveal anything.
I don't get anything when I click the links.

So perhaps instead of giving me a link, you can post a few specific paragraphs dealing with the evidence for "universal common ancestor".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think I am having trouble. You appear to be worried.

Reproduction is an ongoing process which we came and found.
It is not evidence that all life descendant from one UCA.

All living things depend upon carbon dioxide, oxygen, energy, phosphorus, hydrogen, nitrogen...
We do not use that to say it is evidence that all life descendant from one UCA.
Why not?

This is not evidence that verifies anything about common descent.

Hardly. And you clearly did not understand why that was evidence for common descent. Go back and reread the post since you made a nonsensical response to it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing there.
The links don't reveal anything.
I don't get anything when I click the links.

So perhaps instead of giving me a link, you can post a few specific paragraphs dealing with the evidence for "universal common ancestor".

It worked for me. I just checked it using your post and it still works. Are you posting from the U.S.?

 

[nPeace]

Hardly. And you clearly did not understand why that was evidence for common descent. Go back and reread the post since you made a nonsensical response to it.

It's vague.
How many times should I read it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's vague.
How many times should I read it?

It was rather clear. If you did not understand you should have asked questions.

First off it might help if you understood what scientific evidence is in the first place. The concept is simple, scientific evidence is an observation that supports a scientific theory or hypothesis. That all life uses DNA and RNA is evidence for common descent since there are other possible means of passing on genetic traits. If life arose twice we might see two different methods. Three times, there could be three different methods.

Also in the same vein there is the chirality of life's amino acids and sugars.

 

[Jose Fly]

Nothing there.
The links don't reveal anything.
I don't get anything when I click the links.

So perhaps instead of giving me a link, you can post a few specific paragraphs dealing with the evidence for "universal common ancestor".

I gotta ask...why? You are a Jehovah's Witness, right?

 

[nPeace]

I gotta ask...why? You are a Jehovah's Witness, right?

100%. Why do you ask?

 

[Jose Fly]

100%. Why do you ask?

Because I've done this before with JWs, and it's always the same....they ask for evidence and after it's posted, they make up excuses to wave it away until eventually they just leave (as you did with the transitional fossils discussion).

I'm not sure what good that does for anyone.

 

[nPeace]

Because I've done this before with JWs, and it's always the same....they ask for evidence and after it's posted, they make up excuses to wave it away until eventually they just leave (as you did with the transitional fossils discussion).

I'm not sure what good that does for anyone.

I am still here. I have gone nowhere.
I see no point in someone repeating something over and over.
It seemed to me, a way to avoid answering my question and just pushing yours.
After a while I simply ignore, but I have gone nowhere.
Deal with me as you want me to deal with you, is all I ask.

If I answer your questions, answer mine.
Don't come back and repeat a question, and ignore mine.
That's what you did.


I am one who do not run away.
With or without your response, I show you why I dismiss the so-called evidence for evolution theory.
The thing is, you can't seem to show me why my reason for dismissing it is not valid. I'll do it again too.

That's the problem you will have with Jehovah's Witnesses.
They reason. Even their young ones reason with the highly educated - and do a splendid job of leaving them speechless.

Were you able to show them that your evidence is verifiable - concrete - flawless?
You see the problem?