Existence

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think it’s obvious that I wouldn’t have an answer that would suffice for you.

Here's the thing though......................

Whatever answer you have in your head, wouldn't suffice for you either if it would concern any other topic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They don't accept that their belief actually requires faith... when in fact it does.

1. it doesn't

2. evolution is not a "belief" any more then gravity is. It's scientific knowledge.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I
When you say it [ToE] is based on observable facts, what observable facts do you mean

Literally everything within the scope of the field.
Comparative anatomy
Observed speciation
Phylogenies
Distribution of species
Distribution of fossils
Etc etc.

, and isn't evidence a collection of facts?

A collection of facts which fit the claims in need of evidence.
Evolution makes loads of testable predictions. Facts that fit those predictions, are evidence.

So isn't faith in God based on observable facts?

No.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"our evolutionary tree as evidenced by genetics and the fossil record"
If I believe a hypothesis, how is that different to other hypotheses?
At the most basic level, phylogenetic trees represent hypotheses about evolutionary history.

The phylogenetic tree is a fact, not a "hypothesis".
A fact, that is predicted by evolution.

If evolution is true, then life must fall into a nested hierarchy; a family tree.
And it does. Regardless of from what angle you collect your data. The pattern that emerges always is a family tree. And the reason for that, is because it is a family tree and species share ancestry.

Genetics and the fossil record require interpretation, yes?

Not really.
Phylogenetic trees are generated by simple automated processes. You feed it with a dataset of fully sequenced genomes. The software will then simply compare them and plot out the matches and differences. The pattern that emerges from this process, is a family tree.

There's no "interpretation" going on. It's just counting genetic matches and plotting them out.

I'm seeing no difference, because what one interprets from the evidence - the body of facts - is just a different interpretation of that evidence.
Correct?

False.

HGT happens. There is no "one shoe fits all".

And geneticists are well aware of that and understand how it happens (and how it does NOT happen).
If you think this is a valid objection, you are very ill-informed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don’t believe in Theory of Evolution or that the earth is billions of years old, either. Some believers accept it because it’s taught in school.

Are you sure that the reason people accept evolution is because it's "taught in school"? Are you really sure that that is the reason?

But, I know that I didn’t evolve from an ape.

How about a mammal? Were your ancestors mammals?

psssst: humans = apes. And mammals. And tetrapods. And vertebrates. And eukaryotes.

To commenters: THere’s a lot of bantering On this thread, but I see no evidence presented that supports evolution. Present your evidence when you state so much exists; telling someone their thinking is flawed, doesn’t support your own belief at all.

Phylogenetics reveal a family tree comprised of all species. Both extant as well as extinct.

 

[blü 2]

It would explain nothing to you but not for me. It’s quite Straightforward so explanation isn’t required

So the philosophical difference between you and me is that you're not interested in the question how?

Because for me, the problem with magic is that it has no how, and thus can't explain, merely assert.

Whereas science is all about what exactly? and how? Which is what I want to know about reality, the world external to me.

 

[LactoseIntolerant]

I have doubt if you did. It is a popular phrase to use when someone is wrong in every single aspect is a post. It has nothing to do with chaos theory itself.

The point is that you were laughably wrong in that post. The theory of evolution is very strongly based upon the scientific method. It is not scientism. And there is more scientific evidence for it than almost any other idea in science.

If you had studied this topic at all you would know of the embarrassing failures of Michael Behe for example. And Meyers, and Berlinski. Behe for example took a series of new discoveries at the time and made the mistake of assuming that scientists would never solve them. That was foolish of him. One thing that happens quite often in the sciences is that new discoveries, which are almost always never fully understood at first is that they do find explanations for those new discoveries. Many were already explained before his book was published and all have been explained since. His claim was that there was no possible way that they could have passed a certain step and ways that they could have were found. His error in thinking was demonstrated with a simple mousetrap.

By the way, if you just used the dictionary for the phrase "fractally wrong" then you almost certainly went to the wrong source:

Fractal wrongness - RationalWiki

So this is your point by point. Interesting. All I hear are your opinions. Your opinion is about as useful as teats on a bull, in general. Quoting groupies of groupies is not even called consensus, just a game of telephone. Just the facts, ma'am. Puh lease.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Despite the evidence?

Why do you believe A when the evidence tells you the correct answer is B?
Do you consider that sensible and rational?

You may read the whole thread

 

[King Phenomenon]

So the philosophical difference between you and me is that you're not interested in the question how?

Because for me, the problem with magic is that it has no how, and thus can't explain, merely assert.

Whereas science is all about what exactly? and how? Which is what I want to know about reality, the world external to me.

We’re different people. It’s all good.
Oh oh oh it’s magic

 

[King Phenomenon]

We’re different people. It’s all good.

Here's the thing though......................

Whatever answer you have in your head, wouldn't suffice for you either if it would concern any other topic.

it’s sufficient all day here

 

[Subduction Zone]

So this is your point by point. Interesting. All I hear are your opinions. Your opinion is about as useful as teats on a bull, in general. Quoting groupies of groupies is not even called consensus, just a game of telephone. Just the facts, ma'am. Puh lease.

I am ready to support any of my claims. I have far more than opinions. I have facts, observations, and logic on my side. What about evolution do you think is wrong? Be specific and you will get specific answers. Be vague and you can only get general answers that you will likely make the error of calling "opinion" or some other claim that only reinforces my statement that creationists do not even understand the basics of science.

It is rather odd that creationists so often refuse to learn the basics and prefer to reply obviously false statements. It is almost as if they knew that if they understood the basics that they would have to admit that they were wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

it’s sufficient all day here

For yourself, perhaps. For someone that can reason rationally, it is not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You speak like a groupie - singing praise of what you don't understand. Illiterate and proud of it.
Don't spread your poison in these parts. Know your evolution - calling the Creator random is a no no of damnable proportion.

Ah yes. Don't support your untenable position. Just make personal attacks on and false claims about the people that point out how ridiculous your position is.

I don't think that you have anything important to say and there is nothing useful to learn from you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So this is your point by point. Interesting. All I hear are your opinions. Your opinion is about as useful as teats on a bull, in general. Quoting groupies of groupies is not even called consensus, just a game of telephone. Just the facts, ma'am. Puh lease.

Irony.

 

[LactoseIntolerant]

I am ready to support any of my claims. I have far more than opinions. I have facts, observations, and logic on my side. What about evolution do you think is wrong? Be specific and you will get specific answers. Be vague and you can only get general answers that you will likely make the error of calling "opinion" or some other claim that only reinforces my statement that creationists do not even understand the basics of science.

It is rather odd that creationists so often refuse to learn the basics and prefer to reply obviously false statements. It is almost as if they knew that if they understood the basics that they would have to admit that they were wrong.

Ok. Start with abiogenesis. You need a living organism with which to start. Please site evidence, no opinions.

 

[LactoseIntolerant]

Ah yes. Don't support your untenable position. Just make personal attacks on and false claims about the people that point out how ridiculous your position is.

I don't think that you have anything important to say and there is nothing useful to learn from you.

You are virtue signalling. It might work with your godless crowds, but I don't buy you honesty of intellect. You have a funky spirit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok. Start with abiogenesis. You need a living organism with which to start. Please site evidence, no opinions.

Wait a second. You just made a claim. You need to support that. You have the burden of proof backwards. You might want to rephrase your question. There is no point in answering improperly phrased questions with unproven assumptions within them.

Do you even know what abiogenesis is?

 

[LactoseIntolerant]

Irony.

Do you and subduction zone share everything or just comments and replies?

 

[LactoseIntolerant]

Wait a second. You just made a claim. You need to support that. You have the burden of proof backwards. You might want to rephrase your question. There is no point in answering improperly phrased questions with unproven assumptions within them.

Do you even know what abiogenesis is?

I do not understand your comment. I guess you are claiming evolution occurs with rocks? Interesting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you and subduction zone share everything or just comments and replies?

You will find that people that can support their claims with facts and evidence tend to agree with each other when it comes to well understood scientific concepts. I am willing to bet that if we each calculated the trajectory of an object on a simple two dimensional grid using a constant force of gravity that we would come to the same answer for that.

It is when everyone's answers about something are different that your ears should perk up.