Is Evolution a science or a faith?

[Esquilax]

Let me know what you think about those people whose statements I have quoted in my main article. Do you think their conclusions about evolution based on their scientific studies are correct or not.

As I've told you before, just quoting people without presenting evidence doesn't convince me. Especially since you've quote mined in the past, so I know you're willing to distort the words of others to prove your point.

The statement that you have found in five seconds is analogous to saying, “Simply have your belief that Evolution is science and you don’t need any evidence.” I had quoted statements from many eminent palaeontologists who with the help of scientific data had shown that fossil record cannot be an evidence for evolution. Scientific data cannot be considered as scientific until it has gaps and loopholes. I discredit the statement of palaeontologists from the Paleontological Society because that statement is not supported by proper scientific evidence.

Leaving aside the absolute stupidity of you simply asserting that my link is invalid because of spectral evidence you don't see fit to actually provide, this is why I hate talking to creationists: you don't seem capable of remembering your own arguments, or are switching them on the fly to avoid ever having to concede a point.

The claim I was responding to, the thing you said that compelled me to post that link, was- and I quote here- "About 90% of palaentologists are absolutely not comfortable to state that fossil record is the evidence for evolution." That was incorrect, as demonstrated by the fact that the international society for Paleontologists was happy to state that the fossil record is evidence for evolution. Now that you've been proved wrong, you're switching claims as though nobody would notice. But your objection here has nothing to do with your initial claim, and is thus simply nonsensical.

Following are only few excerpts from reliable sources that shows Fossil record cannot be the evidence of transitional animals.

You're a known quote miner: quotes given without citations from you mean nothing.

Two:

“The difficulty is exacerbated by the fact that one of the goals of evolutionary taxonomy is to identify taxa that were ancestors of other taxa. However, it is almost impossible to be sure that any form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other. In fact, because evolution is a branching process that produces a complex bush pattern of related species rather than a linear process producing a ladder-like progression, and because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other.”

You understand that there's a difference between "direct ancestor" and "taxonomic predecessor," correct? Oh, who am I kidding? Of course you don't.

The point is that the quote here, and the one earlier, are not saying that these fossils can't be considered transitional. It's warning against overstating the case they present by claiming that they're direct ancestors of specific other organisms. That, however, is not an admission that they aren't taxonomically related.

And you don't actually know what any of those terms mean, do you?

“This is an INCOMPLETE LIST which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with entries that are RELIABLY SOURCED…”

Of course it's an incomplete list. Do you expect that we should find fossils of absolutely every animal that has ever lived? Surely you can see how unreasonable that is?

But don't take the honesty of scientists as a point for your cause, Harris. It's not. We don't need to know absolutely everything in order to observe patterns. Interesting, however, that your expectation of evidence for evolution is "absolute, one hundred percent comprehension or nothing," but for creationism it's "nothing."

Besides, what you're committing is a "ninety nine percent equals zero percent" fallacy: less than perfect comprehension doesn't mean no comprehension at all.

“… As noted already by Darwin, THE FOSSIL RECORD IS INCOMPLETE…”

“… This is a TENTATIVE list of transitional fossils ...”

What a fucking surprise: a creationist taking scientist's honest admission of less than perfect certainty as a sign of weakness.

This exactly what your problem is. You are living in the world of hallucinations and dreams. You think you have literally seen evolution happen, right in front of your eyes, multiple times! You are no less that those people who claim that Jesus came to them.

I have seen evolution occur in front of me. My family breeds dogs, see, so I've watched how the litters change from what their ancestors were.

However, the staunchest of all, Dawkins (as being a scientist) do not agree with you as well as the father of evolution, Darwin do not have same opinion as you do. Look what they are saying:
“We are condemned to live only for a few decades and that is too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution GOING ON”

You can see it in small measures. It's not hugely impressive, but it's there. Dawkins is correct in that species transitions takes longer than we live to occur, but genetic variation over generations- what evolution is- is easy to see.

I do not believe that evolution may happen in one generation or in trillion generations. Science has not recognized it as a scientific fact it is still a postulate. Cambrian explosion is totally against theory of evolution.

I've already explained how the cambrian explosion is not what you think it is, liar. You just ignored me.

But quit being evasive: what is it that you, Harris, think that the theory of evolution claims happens? Not whether you think it does happen, not what you think the evidence says, what do you think that the theory of evolution describes?

CAT scan or MRI can only exhibit through what physical changes your body goes when you are feeling love or going through some emotional experience. These tools have no competency to look inside your emotions and feelings that cause those physical changes in your body.

If you want to claim that those emotions are more than just nerochemical interactions, you'll have to demonstrate that. Otherwise, what you're just saying is "Yeah, I know electric impulses in your muscles cause your arms to move, but where does movement come from?"

I am assuming that you are under an impression that it is the natural selection, which is causing changes in your body first and then those changes invoke feelings of love and emotions in you. If it is true then this kind of extreme reductionism that reduces thought simply to the firing of the neurons in the brain and so on, well this kind of belief is suicidal because that reduces the intellectual mind to the level of mere microchip.

Or, the mind could be an emergent property of a physical brain. Just because it's a process and not a thing in itself doesn't make it worthless.

All right, let us not argue on the differences between abiogenesis and evolution. I will concentrate only on evolution without mixing abiogenesis to its base level. I hope this way you will have some comfort.

As for evolution, whether it is science, I am not convinced due to immense number of scientific evidence that manifest only contradiction to the concept of evolution. You may praise evolution with eloquent words (or write some beautiful poetry) but science needs scientific data that would be able to predominate the minds in scientific community. Science does not look for praiseworthy words it appreciate data based on facts. If you think the examples that you had presented up until now are sufficient then you are wrong. Not even a single example is able to satisfy all scientific norms and if they were competent enough then theory of evolution would be considered as an established science like Theory of relativity. Despite all those facts and proofs that you have given, Theory of evolution is still no more than a postulate.

The theory of evolution is a confirmed scientific fact, accepted by ninety seven percent of all scientists. Consider that you, layman that you are, might not understand the evidence for evolution. Because if you're going to stand there and ask me to believe that you know more about biology than the majority of biologists, I'm not willing to make that leap. Aren't you even able to consider if you might be wrong?

I know very well that atheism lacks morals and you do not need to exhibit your immoral character to prove it to me.

I'm not the one lying repeatedly in this thread though, am I? That's you.

You are bringing evidence of only 420 individuals over billions and billions of believers in God/Deity. What an adamant behavior you have!

And again, you've switched arguments. Your claim was "everyone has an inbuilt belief in god," and I showed that isn't true. Just saying "well, that's not many people!" doesn't address the issue.

Ok, then why are you defending Evolution.

Because it is a scientifically verifiable fact, and you are vastly underqualified to comment on it without challenge.

I disagree because there is no evidence for beneficial mutation. Not you and not any scientist can give a single example of beneficial mutation. Not even Dawkins. See it yourself.

I can. Nylonase. That was easy. Also, the third time you've made this claim, and the third time I've linked to that to respond to you. The last two times you simply ignored it.

If there were no alternate theory that explains, how life spread on earth, would that be an enough evidence to justify evolution, which is no more than a postulate?

No, that would be an argument from ignorance. However, evolution has plenty of positive evidence for it.

Conjecture!

Nice dodge. Now answer the question: what do you think the theory of evolution by natural selection claims?

It is because Dawkins is a hypocrite. He say one thing in one place and after realizing what he said he manipulate his words and twist the truth.

I don't understand. Are you saying that Dawkins somehow made Stein interrupt him mid sentence with narration added later in editing? Because that's what happened: Dawkins was talking, and then in the film Stein's narration cut over the top of his answer mid way through before he could stress that he was speaking in hypotheticals.

Are you actually saying that Dawkins somehow influenced Ben Stein's voice over?

I am only putting facts on the table and nothing else. You may use your words in any way, you like, but the fact is that Atheism is a belief in the non-existence of God.

So, you apologize for telling me what I believe, and then in the next paragraph tell me what I believe. Harris, have we ever met? Can you read my thoughts?

No on both counts? Then kindly stop trying to tell me what I believe.