Elektable

[guerilla]

Actually, you're going to need more than logic to disprove/prove scientific theories.

Actually, you only need logic to disprove a theory. If a theory isn't congruent with the facts, it cannot be true.

Pretty simple stuff.

You need concrete, repeatable observations. That's how physics works. This isn't math.

I suggest you do some self-education in the area of "domains of knowledge".

Actually, I'm pretty sure atheism has a monopoly on science. Theists believe a magical fairy created everything and is responsible for keeping everything in order. They make assertions that cannot be proven. Period. It's easy - I pewep do declare there are magical invisible unicorns that keep everything in harmony. Prove me wrong.
That's not how atheists or scientists work. If you make a claim, you have to prove it. YOU have the burden of proof.

First, atheists are a very small segment of society. A great many scientists are theists. Darwin considered himself an agnostic, not an atheist.

You're making assertions throughout this thread, and you have substantiated nothing relevant to the discussion on evolution. You've presented no evidence, no facts, no research, no data, no tests. I suspect you've also not read the Origin of Species.

Stop being argumentative now. You used the an ad hominem attack vs wikipedia and I essentially said that would be silly because wikipedia is a very credible source 88% of the time (it is literally 88% accurate).

I can't Ad Hominem Wikipedia, because Ad Hominem is "argument against the man". Wikipedia is not a man.

Please do not use logical fallacies you do not understand.

Your own numbers suggest Wikipedia is far from infallible, and yet you cite it as an absolute authority. Again, argument from authority which is indeed a logical fallacy.

That's ok, let me refresh you. This is what you said:

Right, you still haven't explained how the scientific method applies here. Why not? Do it now.

Funny, me too. I also know for a fact the "theory" of evolution has just as much credence to it as current gravitational theories do.

Well, if you know that as a fact, you have struggled to articulate those facts.

We had a thread like this 2 or 3 months ago. Same shit. When atheists are asked to substantiate their theory, they get loud and thrash around, but no proof is forthcoming.

That is because they don't have any. Maybe someone, somewhere does, but it doesn't appear to be you.

And guess what, it is the cornerstone of modern biology and genetics.

Argument from authority, Argument from popularity.

(This is how you apply the idea of logical fallacies)

Guerilla: A hypothesis doesn't need to be tested based on the definitions you posted.

This is what I actually said: A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually (and I'm being polite - ALWAYS), a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Uh, yeah. There is nothing in there that claims a hypothesis must be tested. It's inception is in the educated guess.

You're not using my definition. You're making up one and misrepresenting my position. That's called a straw man attack.

How am I misrepresenting exactly what you wrote?

I just demonstrated I am not or rather you demonstrated it for me.

It is, that's why I'm wondering what went wrong in your education.

I got exposed to ideas like epistemology and skepticism. This means I don't think like you. Or rather, I actually think instead of repeating positions and ideas I don't understand.

You'd be wise to do the same.

Now, because I have to do work today, I am going to ask you to do one honest thing within the context of this discussion.

If you want me to reply again, you will need to start posting proof of evolution.

If you cannot provide any proof of your theory (remember, you said the burden of proof is on you), then you're not deserving of my time.

I think that is pretty fair and straightforward.

Got it?

 

[pewep]

I'll flip a coin. Heads I'll destroy your arguments, tails I watch another episode of supernatural while waiting for my server to finish.

 

[guerilla]

If you had proof, I suspect you would have posted it.

My money is on Supernatural and cowardice.

 

[pewep]

I already posted the proof shortbus, read my other posts. I had 3 nice good long links for you to digest.

 

[guerilla]

Thanks for playing Pewep. You ranted about the burden of proof, and the burden proved too great for you. LOL

 

[pewep]

Guerilla, CLICK the links i gave you and READ, THEN come talk.

 

[guerilla]

Still posting and no proof.

The old "click my links" argument-by-proxy is almost as lulzy as citing Wikipedia.

 

[nickycakes]

Still posting and no proof.

The old "click my links" argument-by-proxy is almost as lulzy as citing Wikipedia.

Lulzy? How about, after your weak arguments get shot down, all you have left is ad-hominem nonsense trying to say i voted for obama or that i'm an atheist. That's even more lulzy. You have all the evidence you need posted in this thread but your argument has degraded into sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I CAN'T HEAR YOU. IM NOT CLICKING YOUR LINKS."

Talk about lulzy.

 

[nickycakes]

Retartds like you think that the only 2 alternatives are evolution and christian bs. The reason you are made to believe darwinism is because it equates humans with animals. Research into it. Even scentists dont believe darwinism. Continue acting out of your survival instincts nickyapes.

Cool story bro.

[citation needed]

 

[pewep]

^^^LOL fucking exactly!!!!

Me: Here are three long websites that go into detail about the theory of evolution and how it's pretty much proved to be almost as concrete as a law. One of them specifically deals with human evolution.
Guerilla: UHMM, WHERE IS YOUR PROOF??

I expected better than that dude...it feels like I'm arguing with my 6 year old cousin.

 

[momchil9]

this is how I feel after wasting 15 minutes reading some of the posts here

 

[Flihead]

This election will be crazy, in a elective way.

 

[guerilla]

Lulzy? How about, after your weak arguments get shot down, all you have left is ad-hominem nonsense trying to say i voted for obama or that i'm an atheist.

Another guy using Ad Hominem incorrectly.

You have all the evidence you need posted in this thread but your argument has degraded into sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I CAN'T HEAR YOU. IM NOT CLICKING YOUR LINKS."

Talk about lulzy.

What evidence? I am asking for it. Where is the evidence of human evolution?

Again, this ain't the first thread like this in 2012.

And, I can post a shit ton of links to Jesus Christ crap. Doesn't make it true.

If you guys believe in Evolution, articulate your understanding, don't push me off to some links, so you can have plausible deniability when I poke holes in the arguments you guys didn't write.

Keep voting bro.

 

[guerilla]

Me: Here are three long websites that go into detail about the theory of evolution and how it's pretty much proved to be almost as concrete as a law.

If it is concrete, articulate the facts.

If you can't, then you aren't in possession of those facts, are you?

Guerilla: UHMM, WHERE IS YOUR PROOF??

You're the one who said the burden was on the person making the assertion. You made an assertion, substantiate it. Don't try to push links on me like I am some total n00b to debating.

If you make a claim, YOU have to back it up. That's how honesty works. YOU SAID SO!

Again, I would like to point out, you have posted ZERO proof of your claims. Why?

 

[erifdekciw]

This thread looked like fun from the outside, but then when I got in here...

 

[Moxie]

I don't have a problem with theories, but I don't confuse them with facts.


Isn't gravity a law?

For a given theory, scientific laws:

1. summarize a framework of ideas within the theory...

3. are empirical - not exact, absolutely true facts like mathematical theorems or identities, since it's always possible for the theory to be overturned by future observation, and there is no possible way to tell if the law "refers to reality" (a philosophical issue, rather than scientific). They can not be "proven or disproven"

Laws of science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is the evidence?

As has been pointed out numerous times here in the past, you can spend the rest of your life looking at evolution evidence. You could probably spend just the next year reading about experiments done on fruit flies, for example.

Maybe you are still confusing evidence with proof?


"the concept of proof has no place in science. Many people who do not actively practice science do not understand that science is structured so that scientists can never prove anything...

Hypotheses and theories can never be proven true using the scientific method. Therefore, science advances only through disproof. This is a critical and often misunderstood point. To be scientific, theories can never be proven true, but all theories must be refutable. Therefore, all theories, and by extension all of science, are tentative.

As an example, let’s use a science fact that is known to most adults: the existence of electrons. We know that electrons exist, but here’s the rub: Science can never prove that electrons exist. Hypotheses about the existence of electrons have been supported after countless tests using the scientific method. In other words, they have not been refuted. Knowledge of the precise nature of electrons will always be undergoing refinement, but the weight of scientific evidence clearly supports the existence of electrons."

UNL's AgBiosafety for Educators

So you're saying, you have a theory that isn't a proven fact, and you claim that the theists have a theory which is also not proven fact.

Only one scientific theory exists in regards to this, everything else is a hypothesis.

As for "theists" :

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

Pope: Creation vs. evolution clash an absurdity