Forbidden Archeology

[Valjean]

Yes.
How is the bible an authority? Why is it more of an authority than the Quran, or Tao Te Ching, or Guru Granth Sahib?
It's full of contradictions, errors, edit's and revisions. It was compiled with an agenda.

Yeah, like I have evidence of God. We have the evidence, but just can't show it. Isn't that right?

Scientific evidence and what usually passes for evidence in religious apologetics couldn't be more different.

 

[Sonofason]

Yes.
How is the bible an authority? Why is it more of an authority than the Quran, or Tao Te Ching, or Guru Granth Sahib?
It's full of contradictions, errors, edit's and revisions. It was compiled with an agenda.

Scientific evidence and what usually passes for evidence in religious apologetics couldn't be more different.

Yet you seem incapable of producing any of the scientific evidence you claim exists. I know that you don't understand the evidence. Your beliefs are based purely on faith...ideological faith.

 

[sayak83]

Yet you seem incapable of producing any of the scientific evidence you claim exists. I know that you don't understand the evidence. Your beliefs are based purely on faith...ideological faith.

Do you require evidence for evolution?
What kind of evidence are you looking for?

 

[Sonofason]

Do you require evidence for evolution?
What kind of evidence are you looking for?

I do not require evidence for evolution. Whether evolution is true is of little significance to me. But you seem to believe that you do have evidence that evolution is true. For that reason alone, I ask that you confirm your apparent belief with the evidence you claim you have.

 

[sayak83]

I do not require evidence for evolution. Whether evolution is true is of little significance to me. But you seem to believe that you do have evidence that evolution is true. For that reason alone, I ask that you confirm your apparent belief with the evidence you claim you have.

As you wish. The posts below are all written by me earlier in this forum clarifying what the theory of evolution is and selection of evidence that convinces me that it's as true as any established theory of science can be.

What evolution is
What is Evolution?
What is Evolution?

The mathematical structure of the theory from which quantitative predictions are made. (only very simple basic level is described as this is a forum). Things like fitness, selection etc. are exactly defined by Mathematics.
What is Evolution?
What is Evolution?
What is Evolution?

Experimental and observational evidence of arising of new gene with new functions both in lab and in nature in accordance with the mathematical predictions from evolutionary theory. (all 3 posts)
How New Genes Arise (yes they do)

How evolutionary theory predicts speciation
How Speciation Happens (yes it does)
How observations validate the speciation mechanism
How Speciation Happens (yes it does)
Experimental validation in lab
How Speciation Happens (yes it does)

A specific case study of evidence of evolution in sea to land transition and why creationism fails as a theory. Both fossil evidence and genetic mechanism is presented.
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed


That should be sufficient. Please feel free to read and comment.

 

[Sonofason]

As you wish. The posts below are all written by me earlier in this forum clarifying what the theory of evolution is and selection of evidence that convinces me that it's as true as any established theory of science can be.

What evolution is
What is Evolution?
What is Evolution?

The mathematical structure of the theory from which quantitative predictions are made. (only very simple basic level is described as this is a forum). Things like fitness, selection etc. are exactly defined by Mathematics.
What is Evolution?
What is Evolution?
What is Evolution?

Experimental and observational evidence of arising of new gene with new functions both in lab and in nature in accordance with the mathematical predictions from evolutionary theory. (all 3 posts)
How New Genes Arise (yes they do)

How evolutionary theory predicts speciation
How Speciation Happens (yes it does)
How observations validate the speciation mechanism
How Speciation Happens (yes it does)
Experimental validation in lab
How Speciation Happens (yes it does)

A specific case study of evidence of evolution in sea to land transition and why creationism fails as a theory. Both fossil evidence and genetic mechanism is presented.
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed


That should be sufficient. Please feel free to read and comment.

Okay, so you have been convinced by claims and statements. Please note that none of these claims do I perceive as evidence. While it all sounds quite reasonable, I see no evidence. I also believe that evolution is reasonable. But I have seen no evidence to date that it is true.

 

[sayak83]

Okay, so you have been convinced by claims and statements. Please note that none of these claims do I perceive as evidence. While it all sounds quite reasonable, I see no evidence. I also believe that evolution is reasonable. But I have seen no evidence to date that it is true.

Why do you consider them to not be evidence. They are what any science would consider evidence. Do you have a special definition.

In science we use Bayesian definition of evidence. Evidence is any observation which increases the likelihood of a theory to be true compared to the likelihood of the theory before the observation was made. If Y is the theory and X is the observation or data, then X is evidence if P(Y|X)>P(Y). A counter evidence has the opposite inequality.

 

[Sonofason]

Why do you consider them to not be evidence. They are what any science would consider evidence. Do you have a special definition.

In science we use Bayesian definition of evidence. Evidence is any observation which increases the likelihood of a theory to be true compared to the likelihood of the theory before the observation was made. If Y is the theory and X is the observation or data, then X is evidence if P(Y|X)>P(Y). A counter evidence has the opposite inequality.

You have not shown the data. You have shown only conclusions that are supposed to be based on data that you failed to provide.

 

[sayak83]

You have not shown the data. You have shown only conclusions that are supposed to be based on data that you failed to provide.

Ridiculous. I have shown all the data. Have you read the posts. Please specify what is lacking exactly from them. If you are interested in any of the specific topics presented in the links, I am happy to discuss and present a comprehensive look at the scientific data associated with that topic.

 

[Sonofason]

Ridiculous. I have shown all the data. Have you read the posts. Please specify what is lacking exactly from them. If you are interested in any of the specific topics presented in the links, I am happy to discuss and present a comprehensive look at the scientific data associated with that topic.

Here are a few examples.
You said:
"c) Change within a population of interbreeding individuals is seen when genes are modified or the relative frequencies of various genes are altered."
This is a claim, not evidence.
You said:
"d) The engine for such change are the countless ways strands of the DNA can undergo mutation during the replication process. Typical human mutation rate is 100/generation."
This is a claim, not evidence.
"e)The mutations cause changes in the genes that in turn cause (in some instances) changes in what proteins are being formed, when and where."
Again, this is a claim, not evidence.

I can go on and on, because every line item is simply a claim, or an inferred conclusion without any evidence to back it up.

Now, can you show evidence for evoltuion?

 

[sayak83]

Here are a few examples.
You said:
"c) Change within a population of interbreeding individuals is seen when genes are modified or the relative frequencies of various genes are altered."
This is a claim, not evidence.
You said:
"d) The engine for such change are the countless ways strands of the DNA can undergo mutation during the replication process. Typical human mutation rate is 100/generation."
This is a claim, not evidence.
"e)The mutations cause changes in the genes that in turn cause (in some instances) changes in what proteins are being formed, when and where."
Again, this is a claim, not evidence.

I can go on and on, because every line item is simply a claim, or an inferred conclusion without any evidence to back it up.

Now, can you show evidence for evoltuion?

Yes the next set links specifically stated as evidence for evolution, shows the actual evidence. For example claim c) about genes is validated through the evidence provided in the post link labeled "How new genes arise". Claim e) is also validated in the same post. Here it is again
How New Genes Arise (yes they do)




Claim d) is validated from experimental data reported in the article below.
» What is the mutation rate during genome replication?

Perhaps you should read the segments labeled as evidence for the evidence?

 

[Valjean]

Yet you seem incapable of producing any of the scientific evidence you claim exists. I know that you don't understand the evidence. Your beliefs are based purely on faith...ideological faith.

Palpable poppycock!
My beliefs are based on evidence. It's religious doctrine that's based on faith (belief without sufficient evidence).
Science and religion operate in opposite ways, and trying to understand science from a faith based perspective is simply unworkable.

You were presented the evidence in middle and high school biology/life sciences classes. All biology is based on a foundation of evolution. Biology makes no sense without the underlying ToE, which ties the whole discipline together.

The evidence is everywhere, in textbooks, magazines, technical journals, internet. I can only conclude that your inability to see it is willful. You're averting your eyes and plugging your ears.

 

[Sonofason]

Palpable poppycock!
My beliefs are based on evidence. It's religious doctrine that's based on faith (belief without sufficient evidence).
Science and religion operate in opposite ways, and trying to understand science from a faith based perspective is simply unworkable.

You were presented the evidence in middle and high school biology/life sciences classes. All biology is based on a foundation of evolution. Biology makes no sense without the underlying ToE, which ties the whole discipline together.

The evidence is everywhere, in textbooks, magazines, technical journals, internet. I can only conclude that your inability to see it is willful. You're averting your eyes and plugging your ears.

No worries, someone on this forum was capable of showing some evidence for evolution. I no longer need you to support your claims. Someone else has done it for you.

 

[Darkstorn]

No worries, someone on this forum was capable of showing some evidence for evolution. I no longer need you to support your claims. Someone else has done it for you.

On the flipside i'm waiting for someone, even you, to explain and support your empty unsubstantiated claims. Just sayin'. In fact, i'd settle for a defence of the Bible versus the Quran regarding which is more of an "authority". But it won't happen.

"" (An ironic smiley because your ignorance sure as hell isn't funny. )

 

[Jose Fly]

You have not shown the data. You have shown only conclusions that are supposed to be based on data that you failed to provide.

Yes he did. In fact, he put forth an impressive amount of effort to describe the evidence, provide links to papers where you can learn more about the evidence, and demonstrate how the evidence supports the theory.

You simply saying "Nuh uh" does not negate those documented facts.

 

[DavidFirth]

Again we find yet another creationist who is ignorant of basic science. One more time....

Science does not deal in "proof". "Proof" is for axiomatic systems like math or law. Science collects data, proposes hypotheses to explain the data, tests the hypotheses, and uses the results to develop theories. There is no step in which something is "proven". For example, there is no "proof" that the earth orbits the sun. We do however have abundant evidence to support the heliocentric theory.

Similarly, we have abundant evidence that life on earth has been evolving for billions of years. That's why it's been the consensus view of the world's earth and life scientists for the last 150+ years. It's not a conspiracy or anything like that; it's just where the evidence points.


Then you should have no trouble defining it. What is a "totally different organism"?


What is a "kind"?

You're simply being stubborn and idiotic, hiding behind theories and models based entirely on assumptions and guesswork.

 

[DavidFirth]

Does your church allow biologists come in to talk about evolutionary theory?

Church is an institution set up by Christ to glorify God.

Schools are supposedly institutions of learning. Tobad it is now canted heavily to learning theoretical models taught incorrectly as fact based. Evolution is a theory, nothing more. Very small changes at the cellular level only prove that like kinds change according to God's will. Dogs remain dogs and cats remain cats.

 

[Sapiens]

Church is an institution set up by Christ to glorify God.

Schools are supposedly institutions of learning. Tobad it is now canted heavily to learning theoretical models taught incorrectly as fact based. Evolution is a theory, nothing more. Very small changes at the cellular level only prove that like kinds change according to God's will. Dogs remain dogs and cats remain cats.

You make a passel of unsubstantiated claims, please provide supporting evidence of:

1. Church is an institution set up by Christ to glorify God
2. now canted heavily to learning theoretical models taught incorrectly as fact based
3. Very small changes at the cellular level only prove that like kinds change according to God's will

Please indicate where you lifted these arguments from, or admit that they are just straw-man or misinterpretations on your part:

1. Evolution is a theory, nothing more
2. Dogs remain dogs and cats remain cats

 

[DavidFirth]

You make a passel of unsubstantiated claims, please provide supporting evidence of:

1. Church is an institution set up by Christ to glorify God
2. now canted heavily to learning theoretical models taught incorrectly as fact based
3. Very small changes at the cellular level only prove that like kinds change according to God's will

Please indicate where you lifted these arguments from, or admit that they are just straw-man or misinterpretations on your part:

1. Evolution is a theory, nothing more
2. Dogs remain dogs and cats remain cats

If you don't know these things you shouldn't even be posting.

 

[Sapiens]

If you don't know these things you shouldn't even be posting.

If you can not make a real case for your claims you should not be posting in a debate forum ... go sing to the choir.