Creationism was mentioned in the first post genius.
No that we are not in agreement on at all. Show me where you pulled these probabilities from.
Then I don't understand why you keep accusing me of claiming that my argument is self refuting and blah blah blah when I have up until this point said nothing about theories being about proof to you... English comprehension issues maybe?Never had a problem with that. Theories are just theories, not necessarily truth. Nothing hard about that to understand at all.
Agreed but please tell me you aren't telling kids that it is all bullschit when you can't prove that.Luckily they're not being indoctrinated that unproven **** must be the truth. Go logic go!
They are the same thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context
Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology
Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology
Ronald R. West, PhD paleoecology (sp?) and geology, Assistant Professor of Paleobiology
Err.. I'd go with the experts here.
So what the **** about it? It was mentioned because of all the zealots continually claiming it's just a creationist invention. So it's completely warranted! But hey we all know you also have a problem with your fellow atheists making religious comments and you don't make such comments yourself so this is obviously not hypocrisy and trying to shut down conversation.
Show me where it's proven first. By your own admission it's unproven and doesn't have to be proven. I can then believe in any probability I want.
LOL trust me I'm not the one with the comprehension issues here. Either it's proven or you have to admit it's not. If you want to claim it's proven then your statement is indeed a self refuting one, otherwise why the heck are you here arguing with me about it? :wtf:
You do know this cuts both ways and can also say "please tell me you aren't telling kids that it is all fact when you can't prove that." Or perhaps I should also now pull the "it's not about proof" card.
As long as you stop mentioning creation theories and other such schit then we will all be cool.
So... I'm saying it doesn't have to proven because it is a theory and you are asking me to show where it is proven?... That request does not make a lot of sense... why would I try and demonstrate something I'm saying isn't the case?
If you don't have comprehension issues then point out where in this thread I said the the theory was proven because I can't remember doing that. Heck I can't remember EVER doing that let alone just in this thread.
Of course not. As I said it is a theory. Anyone that presents a theory as anything but an explanation of observations is a muppet. You can't "prove" an explanation of observations. Your explanation can change or be demonstrated to be total horse manure but it can't be proven. That isn't what theories are about. That isn't what science is about.You do know this cuts both ways and can also say "please tell me you aren't telling kids that it is all fact when you can't prove that." Or perhaps I should also now pull the "it's not about proof" card.
As far as I can see I am. Please point out where I am not being intellectually honest and explain it thanks.Intellectually honest... The first thing about intellectual honesty is being honest with yourself.
That is what others called it. That doesn't mean I agree with it. Sorry that was my fault I should have put it in single quotes to demonstrate that.FIFY
Evolution and gravitation is a theory.
Gaia and creation is a hypothesis.
Sorry we talking science here so best to keep to science vocabulary. <-- Elimentals pulling a Techne impression
) want this to become an "Evolution vs. Creation" dumping ground. Leave that garbage to PD where it belongs.
Fact is it's perfectly valid to use quotes or even multiple quotes to enforce an argument. You and everyone that use this evolutionist "quote-mine" invention to make it appear as something wrong have no substantiation for that so you are actually conducting a fallacy. It is not a recognised term.Lol, by quote mining. But of course, that doesn't exist does it?
Shifting the goalpost much? Your claim was that the FOSSIL RECORD is proof for evolution. It's not as I just showed you. Any geologist worth his/her salt will admit that. As you see some even consider it to only be compatible with evolution! As for "evolution is fact" no expert can make such a claim as it's unscientific so if you believe anybody like Dawkins for instance you're believing a philosophical claim not a scientific one.
It is indeed. Look it up.
Evolution is an observed fact just as gravity is. Our explanations (By Odin's beard he means theories when he says explanations!!!
) for both might need some work or be totally off but both evolution and gravity themselves are observed facts.
It's you people that always introduces schit so NO! If you want it to stop then first take out the balk from your eye.
Because if theories don't have to be proven then the real world can see them as worthless. I can then claim any horse****e I want and it's a valid theory. I know the whole "science doesn't prove blah blah blah" but as I told the other guy this is an ideology and not how science operates in practice.
My words were "possibly and even probably untrue." It's a range not an absolute. But why can't I believe in any probability I want especially if as you claim proof has no bearing here? It's my belief and my mind so you have no say in telling me I can or I can't.
:wtf: Science is not about proving anything? Well then science is completely worthless to us. Can't trust anything sciency then and might as well throw it out. Hey, I don't want to mention this but it might be just as good as religion then. Better tell all those biologists trying to prove their findings to get more research money for AIDS that they've been doing it all wrong according to YOU.
LOL I never claimed to tell kids that anything is bullschit but if I did it wouldn't be as bad as telling them something is proven when it isn't.
Actually did when I first started seeing it used. Can't find the term in most of the common dictionaries so it's not part of popular culture. Can't find it in formal logic so it's not recognised by any debating bodies. Can only find it used as an evolutionist invention and people criticising it as one. You might be confusing this with thinking it exists but it doesn't. It's not a fallacy so to make a claim of "quote mining" is itself a fallacy.
We have been through this many times, mutation is the only thing that might be a fact if you can observe it. Evolution EXPLAINS so by definition it's a theory and can't be observed. Anyone claiming evolution as observed is actually claiming to observe something else entirely. And don't even come with this gravity strawman. Even if we exclude the fact or law or whatever you want to call it of gravity the theory of gravity has 100x more evidence and proof to support it than the ToE.Evolution is an observed fact just as gravity is. Our explanations (By Odin's beard he means theories when he says explanations!!!
It is indeed how science operates in practice.
Who said I believe anything?
I only entered the discussion because you were demanding proof for a theory... which is nonsensical.
Then by all means point out that a theory cannot be proven by it's very nature.
Proof has no bearing on scientific theories sure but that has nothing to do with probabilities. Probabilities are measurable and not based on mere feelings. If you claim that something is improbable I'm going to ask you to demonstrate why and you had better have more than subjective feelings. If all you have are subjective feelings then it is a baseless claim that is safely discarded.
Nope. Everything must remain open to challenge. That is a fundamental aspect of science.
It seems that you have misunderstood what I am saying. Just because science leaves everything open to challenge based on further observations (and hence never 100% proven) that doesn't mean science is worthless. The scientific method has given us many amazing things. The opprtunity to post on this forum being just one of them.
I have had my own relatively limited experiences with the wonderful world of scientific studies and I assure you that in my experiences with academics it does indeed work that way.
Never said you did. It was a question. That is what the '?' thing on the end of the sentence meant.
Nah evolution is a pretty interesting thing. Pretty much something as simple as the transfer of traits from one generation to the next can be considered evolution. We have definitely observed that. It is observed fact, just as gravity is. We certainly may not understand all the ins and outs of evolution (just as we don't understand all the ins and outs of gravity) but that doesn't mean they aren't observed fact. Anyone claiming they aren't just hasn't read enough about all the amazing observations that have been made.
I also eat, drink, breath and piss so what exactly is your point? If "quote mining" exists as you claim you still haven't shown that it's anything but quoting a presumed authority, something which is done is almost every official debate. Speaking of agendas the whole purpose of this thread was to set the record straight that there is a recognised difference between micro- and macro-evolution. A pretty admirable "agenda" most would say and not like the agendas of those that claim it's just a made up. No wonder you want to move on from your agenda.
Unfortunately you pick somebody who is not an expert in the field. Probably why he makes a claim about proof the true experts are not willing to make.
FTFY.
He can't make the claim as a scientist that it's fact as it's not. If you want to read philosophy then Michael Ruse is much better at it.You put up the fossil record as proof. I told you it's not. You then claimed an "expert" knows better than me. I then showed it's not me but real experts that says it's not. Unhappy with this realisation you then went to your same "expert" making claims on fact. YOU were the one hung up on the fossil record as "proof" for evolution and YOU are the one shifting the goalposts.
You are the one so clearly showing you have an agenda to promote.
Same to you...
You mean science doesn't prove stuff in practice? So I guess you're off then to tell those biologists they're doing it all wrong.
Where did I demand proof? I only demand proof like any reasonable and sane person if someone wants to assert something as true or fact. Again in your dream world it seems one doesn't need prove for claims but the real world demands some proof. You have so clearly put your foot in your mouth here I don't know why you want to continue. This is why the law seems so apt here:
You claimed proof has no bearing in science.
You're asking me to justify my belief. If something is not proven and not about proof then anybody can belief whatever they want about its probability.
It seems you are misunderstanding. Nobody asked for 100% undeniable proof and I even said nothing can be proven beyond any doubt. What you don't seem to understand is that practical science does work to prove things. If you assume that this makes it unopen to challenge you are wrong. Using your example the reason you have the opportunity to post on this forum is because semiconductors were proven capable of replacing vacuum tubes.
And again I'm going to tell you that your insistence on qualifications is a double fallacy if you assume that either way it makes the claim true or untrue. Now if you did work with scientists and didn't see them prove anything then they were either a) bad scientists or b) working only with raw data or c) you simply missed the forest for the trees.
Sign up with Google