(January 22, 2019 at 12:26 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 22, 2019 at 4:48 am)pocaracas Wrote: I think I see your problem.
And I'm sorry. No scientist will give you proof of anything, except mathematicians.

All you get is evidence. Evidence can overwhelmingly point in one direction, but it will never prove things beyond any (reasonable or unreasonable) doubt.

If you want the very first publication where many examples of evolution in action are given, look no further than Darwin's "On the Origin of Species": http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pd...Y_F382.pdf

It is known that this first approach has a few errors, flaws and missing details.
To correct those that have been spotted, biologists have developed what they nowadays refer to as "Modern synthesis", and here is the wiki version of its description: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_syn...h_century).
As with any scientific wiki page, at the end, you'll find references to reputable publications. You'll notice that there are many for this page alone. What you want is the aggregate of all those references and, very likely, the references within those and, still likely, the references within these...
It is a huge endeavor, when you want to get the whole picture, to as complete a degree as someone with multiple PhDs on the subject.
Personally, I'm happy with accepting the contents of the wiki as trustworthy enough.
Good luck!

It's not "my" problem.  It's "your" problem if you make claims you can't properly support.

I don't care about generic explanations, large pots of information that I would need to randomly sort through because you cited them.  I care about what you say and being able to show it.  Beyond that, it's just someone making invalid statements.   Now if you can pinpoint something someone found out with a direct citation, then that's something.  But to tell someone to go through thousands of journals because you claim something is there is just telling me you don't know and want to send me on a wild goose chase you know I won't go on.

LOL. I don't remember making any claim.
I'm just trying to educate you on the subject of evolution. You're the one excusing yourself in order to maintain your ignorance.
Good luck with that.

(January 22, 2019 at 2:21 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(January 22, 2019 at 12:26 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: It's not "my" problem.  It's "your" problem if you make claims you can't properly support.

I don't care about generic explanations, large pots of information that I would need to randomly sort through because you cited them.  I care about what you say and being able to show it.  Beyond that, it's just someone making invalid statements.   Now if you can pinpoint something someone found out with a direct citation, then that's something.  But to tell someone to go through thousands of journals because you claim something is there is just telling me you don't know and want to send me on a wild goose chase you know I won't go on.

LOL. I don't remember making any claim.
I'm just trying to educate you on the subject of evolution. You're the one excusing yourself in order to maintain your ignorance.
Good luck with that.

I don't need you to educate me, nor did I ask.  If someone makes a claim, they should support it.  If you want to help them, that's your choice.  If you don't care to, and they don't, then I don't care either.  Not going on a hunt for information people claim exists if they don't even know where it exists.

---

(January 22, 2019 at 2:07 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(January 22, 2019 at 1:29 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: At this point, I don't even know.  At least three different claims about science, especially during the past 150 years, that supposedly support the views of said individuals and refute the claims of CDF47's.  Of course it also changed to "relevant" science when I questioned that, then I wanted to know what was considered "relevant" and who got to choose and why.  Now I guess I'm supposed to purchase a journal subscription and sort through thousands of journals to find the info on my own.  That's pretty much where it's at now.  From my perspective of course.  Thus my claim of a "wild goose chase." 

I'm really not trying to take sides here.  I don't hold to special I.D. ideology, even though I believe in creation, because I think what is known can get diluted when people add on their own ideas of what may or may not have happened.  In other words, I don't own a time machine and I dunno because I wasn't there.

BTW, nice to see ya again.

Likewise!  So, are you objecting to evolution?  Is that the gist of the conversation?

Not objecting to anything.  I don't generalize about evolution because it's a broad topic.   Some things may very well be true and other things are conjecture that may or may not be true.  More or less, interested in looking at individual claims under a microscope and sort out the good from the bad.

(January 21, 2019 at 3:16 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

Quote:Evolution to an extent is part of the implementation of the design as I have stated.  There are natural processes used by the Designer.

Yes indeed. It was really great design that gave elephants an immune system 20 times stronger than humans,
and a design that gives cancer to infants and babies. Yay God.

It was also really great design that made it so that the solar system was vulnerable to the 5 great mass extinction events :
•End Ordovician, 444 million years ago, 85% of species lost
•Late Devonian, 375 million years ago, 75% of species lost. ...
•End Permian, 251 million years ago, 96% of species lost. ...
•End Triassic, 200 million years ago, 80% of species lost. ...
•End Cretaceous, 66 million years ago, 76% of all species lost
thus demonstrating all these creatures were made for no purpose, other than to wipe them out.

Real smart design there. LOL

Man was designed to decay and die.  It is the intent of the Designer.

---

(January 21, 2019 at 3:21 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

So, just to clarify CDF47?

 Your position is that:

"Nothing could/can falsify I.D."  ?

No, that's a straw man.  My position is nothing can falsify the information bearing properties of DNA which clearly shows there is a Designer.

Except logic, right 47?

(January 22, 2019 at 5:47 pm)no one Wrote: Except logic, right 47?

No, nothing can falsify it.

(January 22, 2019 at 5:47 pm)no one Wrote: Except logic, right 47?

I will have you know, that is really HK-47, so careful.

(January 22, 2019 at 6:21 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(January 22, 2019 at 5:47 pm)no one Wrote: Except logic, right 47?

No, nothing can falsify it.

The definition of a legitimate hypothesis is it can be falsified.  Only bullshit dependent on avoiding examination that either are, or are asserted to be, unfalsifiable.  your unfalsifiable bull shit is so contemptible it is dismissed by any scientifically minded as “not even wrong”.    Being wrong can still be educational.  Your bulkshit does not have even that the absolute least of redeeming qualities that any theory that is actually wrong would still possess.

There is probably right, probably wrong, and there is utterworthlessness known as “not even wrong”.

(January 22, 2019 at 6:54 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(January 22, 2019 at 6:21 pm)CDF47 Wrote: No, nothing can falsify it.

The definition of a legitimate hypothesis is it can be falsified.  Only bullshit dependent on avoiding examination that either are, or are asserted to be, unfalsifiable.  your unfalsifiable bull shit is so contemptible it is dismissed by any scientifically minded as “not even wrong”.    Being wrong can still be educational.  Your bulkshit does not have even that the absolute least of redeeming qualities that any theory that is actually wrong would still possess.

There is probably right, probably wrong, and there is utterworthlessness known as “not even wrong”.

So can you actually refute his claim or not?  You don't need jibber jabber.  Just "falsify" his claim and there ya have it.  Right now it looks like he has you on the ropes and you're looking for a way out.

(January 22, 2019 at 7:35 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 22, 2019 at 6:54 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:


The definition of a legitimate hypothesis is it can be falsified.  Only bullshit dependent on avoiding examination that either are, or are asserted to be, unfalsifiable.  your unfalsifiable bull shit is so contemptible it is dismissed by any scientifically minded as “not even wrong”.    Being wrong can still be educational.  Your bulkshit does not have even that the absolute least of redeeming qualities that any theory that is actually wrong would still possess.

There is probably right, probably wrong, and there is utterworthlessness known as “not even wrong”.

So can you actually refute his claim or not?  You don't need jibber jabber.  Just "falsify" his claim and there ya have it.  Right now it looks like he has you on the ropes and you're looking for a way out.

You are not even wrong. Moron.

Quote:T0 Th3 M4X

Come on Bucky.  I think you're approaching the world record for refuting yourself with your own statements.  For someone who constantly states they're a "scientist", I would think that you would understand the importance of proper citations.  If someone claims something, then it's reasonable for them to share where they obtained their information, so someone else can come to that same conclusion, or even repeat the assertions in order to validate them.  If you think asking for citations is "whining", then congrats on calling every scientist out there a whiner.  In fact, you might as well call every professional out there who deals in literature a whiner, because we all depend on writing and receiving good citations.  That's one of the most important components to being scientific.  We can gain new knowledge based on what is already known.

Sorry gramps. Your dementia is showing. I never once said here I was a scientist. Not only do I not "constantly" do it, I never did it. 
You're in no position to be handing out advice on anything. 

I do get that since you have all day every day with nothing else to do, but troll here on the internet, from your nursing home, but really , 
you should ask your kids to find you a different home which has activities for the seniors.