Proof of evolution -at last-

[cladking]

Evolution is a scientific fact.

It's impossible to argue with anyone who changes the definitions of words not dependent on context but on the argument.

 

[cladking]

Present a coherent argument in terminilogy that translates to science and I will gladly consider what yyiu have ti offerl

If you refuse to respond to or acknowledge what has already been presented there is no point.

If religion had any supporting evidence it would be universally accepted.

"Evidence" is observable.

What every believer does is simply discount all evidence that doesn't fit his beliefs. It is simply invisible. It doesn't matter if the evidence is a 6 1/2 million ton edifice, words inked on parchment or carved into stone it will be invisible to believers. I've sprinkled all sorts of evidence through these posts and have made attempts at more comprehensive presentations in the past but it is all ignored. Deal with the evidence and logic here and I'll write a damn book to present all the evidence3 if that's what it takes.

Indeed since every experiment ever performed by man supports my theory all you really need to do is show a single experiment that shows a gradual change in species caused by natural selection that isn't better explained under a different paradigm.

But no, everyone ignores what I say and claims it makes no sense. Believers are incapable of seeing what doesn't fit their beliefs.

If you guys want to ignore every opposing argument and do another victory lap in a thread that scientifically proves Evolution then you'll preceded without me.

Address the argument and quit expecting me to type it out for you in every post.

 

[Valjean]

It's impossible to argue with anyone who changes the definitions of words not dependent on context but on the argument.

What words are you talking about, here?

 

[Valjean]

"Evidence" is observable.

How observable is observable? Just visual, eyewitness evidece? How about indirect evidence, like fingerprints, DNA or a dated sequence of fossils?
I can sit out in a corn field all day and observe nothing, but I know the corn is growing, just not at an easily "observable" rate.

What every believer does is simply discount all evidence that doesn't fit his beliefs. It is simply invisible. It doesn't matter if the evidence is a 6 1/2 million ton edifice, words inked on parchment or carved into stone it will be invisible to believers. I've sprinkled all sorts of evidence through these posts and have made attempts at more comprehensive presentations in the past but it is all ignored. Deal with the evidence and logic here and I'll write a damn book to present all the evidence3 if that's what it takes.

What you count as evidence, if I read you correctly, is not evidence.
Science works with directly observed evidence and the evidence of test results. Religion has neither of these.

Indeed since every experiment ever performed by man supports my theory all you really need to do is show a single experiment that shows a gradual change in species caused by natural selection that isn't better explained under a different paradigm.

Yet you seem to be the only one who holds this position, or draws such a conclusion from the experiments everyone else interprets differently.
There is simply no evidence that things pop into existence instantly and with no mechanism of creation.

But no, everyone ignores what I say and claims it makes no sense. Believers are incapable of seeing what doesn't fit their beliefs.

But your claims do make no sense, and we're hardly ignoring you.

If you guys want to ignore every opposing argument and do another victory lap in a thread that scientifically proves Evolution then you'll preceded without me.

We're not ignoring your arguments. Some of your claims aren't arguments, some are completely unfounded, and nobody manages to draw the same conclusions you do. And what's this 'scientifically proves evolution' nonsense? It's you who seem to be misreading and failing to understand our posts, as well as ignoring real evidence.

Address the argument and quit expecting me to type it out for you in every post.

Sorry, we're just not seeing your argument.

 

[shunyadragon]

Do you believe I said anything untrue?

that's what we're supposed to be discussing. I keep telling you when you make false statements but nobody wants to converse.

Not untrue(?) nor true (?), but your posts lack substance concerning your view and the science of evolution, Arguing ;in the negative that something is not 'proven?) is not meaningful.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you refuse to respond to or acknowledge what has already been presented there is no point.

Nothing of substance has been presented.

"Evidence" is observable.

True so what?!?!?!?!

What every believer does is simply discount all evidence that doesn't fit his beliefs. It is simply invisible. It doesn't matter if the evidence is a 6 1/2 million ton edifice, words inked on parchment or carved into stone it will be invisible to believers. I've sprinkled all sorts of evidence through these posts and have made attempts at more comprehensive presentations in the past but it is all ignored. Deal with the evidence and logic here and I'll write a damn book to present all the evidence3 if that's what it takes.

Please present examples of 'observed evidence' that supports your positions.

[quote[ Indeed since every experiment ever performed by man supports my theory all you really need to do is show a single experiment that shows a gradual change in species caused by natural selection that isn't better explained under a different paradigm. [/quote]

There is no evidence that supports a different paradigm.

But no, everyone ignores what I say and claims it makes no sense. Believers are incapable of seeing what doesn't fit their beliefs. [/qoute]

Nothing presnted as far as evidence that could be ignored.

If you guys want to ignore every opposing argument and do another victory lap in a thread that scientifically proves Evolution then you'll preceded without me.

Address the argument and quit expecting me to type it out for you in every post.

No argument with evidence presented so far.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's impossible to argue with anyone who changes the definitions of words not dependent on context but on the argument.

How did I do that? I even posted a link that gave the definition of a scientific fact. to support my claim. Once again you appear to be projecting, because that matches your tactics. When one is talking about the sciences and wants a definition of a term one uses a scientific definition Not a general definition since generalists do not even tend to know what "proof" is. You made up your own false definition and expect others to go along with it. That is not how language works. One takes the context of the conversation into account and finds the definition that matches the word and the context. I did that. You were wrong again .

Is this why you never use appropriate sources? I can understand your reluctance to support your claims with links since your own links, if appropriate, would refute you.

 

[cladking]

Arguing ;in the negative that something is not 'proven?

I HAVE NEVER SAID OR IMPLIED SUCH A THING.

I keep pointing out that believers believe Evolution is proven!

IT IS NOT PROVEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I HAVE NEVER SAID OR IMPLIED SUCH A THING.

I keep pointing out that believers believe Evolution is proven!

IT IS NOT PROVEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, it is you that keeps claiming that and those that accept evolution as a fact, which it is., are the ones that claim it is proven. Those that know that evolution is a scientific fact do not make the mistake of saying "It is proven".

Unless of course one is prepared to add modifiers. In a court of law nothing is proven in the mathematical sense either. The standard in a court of law is "Proven beyond a reasonable doubt". If that is the definition of "proven" that one is using then yes, the the theory of evolution is "proven".

Now please answer this question:

What definition of "proven" are you using?

 

[cladking]

No, it is you that keeps claiming that and those that accept evolution as a fact, which it is., are the ones that claim it is proven

No. Even I don't dispute that Evolution is a "fact". What I am disputing is the behavior of believers in Evolution to use the existence of Evolution theory as prove that there actually exists Evolution as defined by 19th century science. I don't mind believing it is a "fact" because it is state of the art but you can't use this opinion as proof and you can't use the opinion of Peers as proof. "TOE" is simply the prevailing paradigm to explain change in species. But this paradigm still fails to explain consciousness or the fact all observed change is sudden. It fails to explain how culling the weak and lame can cause a species to undergo gradual change.

It is a fact that words written on paper and carved in stone exist and underlie many modern beliefs. It is a fact that such writing is evidence. Just because you interpret all of it to be superstitious nonsense written by sun addled bumpkins doesn't turn it into nonevidence any more than anything that is palpable or observed is not evidence. Every individual life other than humans on the planet knows that consciousness is real and determinative. Somehow humans missed that day of school.

How do you think beavers invented fish farming?

I use every definition of "proven" and expect conversationalists to parse the meaning. When a definition isn't clear then I provide one.

 

[cladking]

Please present examples of 'observed evidence' that supports your positions.

All observed change is sudden.

There is no evidence that supports a different paradigm.

No. The very nature of paradigms is to provide the most accurate way to interpret all experiment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. Even I don't dispute that Evolution is a "fact". What I am disputing is the behavior of believers in Evolution to use the existence of Evolution theory as prove that there actually exists Evolution as defined by 19th century science. I don't mind believing it is a "fact" because it is state of the art but you can't use this opinion as proof and you can't use the opinion of Peers as proof. "TOE" is simply the prevailing paradigm to explain change in species. But this paradigm still fails to explain consciousness or the fact all observed change is sudden. It fails to explain how culling the weak and lame can cause a species to undergo gradual change.

It is a fact that words written on paper and carved in stone exist and underlie many modern beliefs. It is a fact that such writing is evidence. Just because you interpret all of it to be superstitious nonsense written by sun addled bumpkins doesn't turn it into nonevidence any more than anything that is palpable or observed is not evidence. Every individual life other than humans on the planet knows that consciousness is real and determinative. Somehow humans missed that day of school.

How do you think beavers invented fish farming?

I use every definition of "proven" and expect conversationalists to parse the meaning. When a definition isn't clear then I provide one.

Oh my another false claim. No one is supporting Darwin's version of evolution. He did get some things wrong. Everyone admits that. But he got quite a bit right. What you do not like is the fact that he got quite a bit right and now you are trying to distort the arguments that you have repeatedly lost. One thing that Darwin got right is that the change in evolution is slow on a biological time scale.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All observed change is sudden.

No, it is not . This has been refuted endlessly. Some changes are sudden on a geological time scale. That is what Gould was talking about. He was never saying that they were biologically sudden. Once again, you need to use the terms in the context that they are used. Gould was a paleontologist. Not a biologist. That means that he dealt with changes on a geologic time scale. Not a biological one. In geology a million years is "sudden".

No. The very nature of paradigms is to provide the most accurate way to interpret all experiment.

And the modern theory of evolution, which includes change that is slow on a biological time scale. You don't seem to understand what is obvious to everyone else. Not all times scales are identical.

 

[shunyadragon]

I HAVE NEVER SAID OR IMPLIED SUCH A THING.

I keep pointing out that believers believe Evolution is proven!

IT IS NOT PROVEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It remains that nothing is proven in science from space stations to cosmology nor evolution.. Pointing this out is meaningless. You have not presenting any evidence nor references, nor coherent statement concerning your view of the evidence of evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

All observed change is sudden.

False as stated and needs clarification what are you referring to observed changes. Yes a single observed change like a mutation is sudden it happens, but many sequences of changes or combinations of events that take place ov er time and the effects of change in anything are gradual over time..

No. The very nature of paradigms is to provide the most accurate way to interpret all experiment.

Maybe true, but needs clarification, and kind of foggy and vague.

 

[Valjean]

I HAVE NEVER SAID OR IMPLIED SUCH A THING.

I keep pointing out that believers believe Evolution is proven!

IT IS NOT PROVEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And you're wrong each time. Claiming something's a fact is not a claim it's proven.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's impossible to argue with anyone who changes the definitions of words not dependent on context but on the argument.

In science there are NO changes in definitions.

 

[cladking]

In science there are NO changes in definitions.

So science has a magical language that is metaphysical and can't be parsed!

I sure wish I had had the opportunity to learn it but I never even knew it existed and that is a fact.

 

[shunyadragon]

So science has a magical language that is metaphysical and can't be parsed!

I sure wish I had had the opportunity to learn it but I never even knew it existed and that is a fact.

A very basic knowledge of high school and freshman college level science, would resolve your issues concerning the language of science.

Science has a specific well defined language based on Methodological Naturalism. It has to, because the methods have to be based on 'objective verifiable physical evidence' and the predictability of our physical existence. If this were not the case thean airplanes would not fly and computers would not work.

Please present specific examples of 'magical and/or metaphysical scientific language' that cannot be parsed.

Eacts in science are specific observable physical phenomenon that can be predicted physically and consistently, and are considered evidence for theories and hypothesis. Nothing has changed since Newton and actually before.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So science has a magical language that is metaphysical and can't be parsed!

I sure wish I had had the opportunity to learn it but I never even knew it existed and that is a fact.

No, where did you get that idea from? I think the problem is that you do not understand the "language" of science. Let's go over the scientific method.