…And how the empiral evidence is there to prove macroevolution but there …
As has been stated on this post before, even hard-core but intellectually honest evolutionists such as Gould and others have either admitted or implied that the empirical evidence that you so earnestly insist is there IS NOT.
There was post earlier about Gould supported macroevolution. Still, even still, it’s not needed to support the theory of evolution or the fact of evolution, which to use Gould again, are two separate things.
Of course he supported it. That’s not my point! He admits the empirical evidence is NOT THERE. Do I need to re-post it?[/quote]
Still, even still, it’s not needed to support the theory of evolution or the fact of evolution, which to use Gould again, are two separate things.
…And how the empiral(sic) evidence is there to prove macroevolution …
One of the greatest myths of modern time.
If that’s what you believe then you don’t believe in quarks or photons, or that doctors can fight unknown diseases.
Nope. Didn’t say anything about quarks and photons and unknown diseases. BTW, all of those can be examined directly and indirectly in the present.[/quote]
Then you understand how macroevoluion be examined. Just like you wrote “indirectly in the present.” That’s what I’ve been apparently failing to get across to you all along.
[quote]IagoMB wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
IagoMB wrote:
There has been a great amount of evidence presented to show this and you have not responded to it other than ignoring it.
Before you run hog wild with your pot calling the kettle black take careful measure of all the evidence presented that you have ignored.
I’ve repsonded to everything you’ve sent.[/quote]
Aw, come on now. You haven’t responded to any of the evidence that I’ve presented. Yes, you have responded to me on my posts but not on the evidence that I quoted.
[quote]throttle132 wrote:
Went to your pet website (yes, you have one too) and found this tidbit. Take note because you have been tossing around the words “proof” and “fact” and “truth” like you really knew what you’re talking about.
[i]What is meant by scientific evidences and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish “truth” or “fact” in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to reevaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge.
“Proof”, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics. That said, we often hear “proof” mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes “strongly supported by scientific means”. Even though one may hear “proof” used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term.
Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms “proof” or “prove” in this article.[/i]
[/quote]
I think you should go back and read past the first paragraph. Especially that part called “Science Provides Evidence for the Unobservable” and understand it and the next paragraph in terms of macroevolution.
[quote]IagoMB wrote:
Then you understand how macroevoluion be examined. Just like you wrote “indirectly in the present.” That’s what I’ve been apparently failing to get across to you all along. [/quote]
You misunderstood me. I’m not trying to be sarcastic here but read the following sloooooooowly. Things that occur in the present can be examined directly AND indirectly.
Macroevolution has occurred in the past and cannot be examined in the same sense as the things you mentioned. Even if your position is that macroevolution is occurring in the present it is doing so in such a slow manner that it cannot be examined directly or indirectly.
[quote]throttle132 wrote:
IagoMB wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
IagoMB wrote:
There has been a great amount of evidence presented to show this and you have not responded to it other than ignoring it.
Before you run hog wild with your pot calling the kettle black take careful measure of all the evidence presented that you have ignored.
I’ve repsonded to everything you’ve sent.
Aw, come on now. You haven’t responded to any of the evidence that I’ve presented. Yes, you have responded to me on my posts but not on the evidence that I quoted.
In all fairness, neither have I to yours.
[/quote]
The ones I have not directly responded I’ve grouped together or indirectly responded to them. I’m trying to limit redundancies. If there is one I’m unaware.
[quote]throttle132 wrote:
IagoMB wrote:
Then you understand how macroevoluion be examined. Just like you wrote “indirectly in the present.” That’s what I’ve been apparently failing to get across to you all along.
You misunderstood me. I’m not trying to be sarcastic here but read the following sloooooooowly. Things that occur in the present can be examined directly AND indirectly.
Macroevolution has occurred in the past and cannot be examined in the same sense as the things you mentioned. Even if your position is that macroevolution is occurring in the present it is doing so in such a slow manner that it cannot be examined directly or indirectly.[/quote]
Does that mean things that happened in the past can not be observed indirectly? Is there evidence left behind?
There has been so much bullshit rhetoric on this thread about evolution being a “proven fact” and yet, the very evolutionist website that has been often cited as a source stands waiting to paddle all your asses.
[quote]throttle132 wrote:
There has been so much bullshit rhetoric on this thread about evolution being a “proven fact” and yet, the very evolutionist website that has been often cited as a source stands waiting to paddle all your asses.
My last reference to it is from Gould, the scientist you’ve been using. Scroll way up to find it. And I really think you should read the rest of that article. It’s proving my point and showing ID is not a science.
[quote]throttle132 wrote:
There has been so much bullshit rhetoric on this thread about evolution being a “proven fact” and yet, the very evolutionist website that has been often cited as a source stands waiting to paddle all your asses.
Here it is. I found from my notes so I don’t have a link.
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them.
Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, “fact” doesn’t mean “absolute certainty”; there ain’t no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world.
Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory–natural selection–to explain the mechanism of evolution.