Evolutionary Tree

[LadyForCamus]

So, since Steve didn't do very well trying persuade us that his 2,000 year old book of hearsay is "irrefutable proof" of God, he's now over here arguing the "you can't prove evolution" ignorance fallacy?  

...Which has been shot down ad nauseam, and has nothing to do with building a positive case for Christianity....

What a complete waste of everyone's time.  Thanks, man.  

They always seem like they will be different coming out of the gate, don't they? Then their true colors show. It's exasperating, but I try to remind myself that it's probably inevitable given the shitty position from which they have to argue. But any time I see Protestants referencing WLC with straight faces, they automatically go into my mental dust bin.

I suppose that's why I esteem Wooters most highly among our Christians. He at least has the good sense to restrict himself to philosophical arguments so as not to get hogtied to the holy book and its ridiculous claims (yes, he accepts it as true -- though not always literally -- but I can't recall seeing him put on the exegetical dunce cap and doing the Fundie dance). And he understands science and the philosophy of science too well to go down the evolution-isn't-demonstrated path.

Yeah...it really is still amazing to me, even after almost a year here. They DO seem different at first, and then the familiar algorithm of contrived and fallacious arguments start to pop up. Never fails to sadden me, no matter how predictable it has become.

Yes, I've noticed Wooters is careful about not jumping into threads related to scripture. He knows he's safer on the philosophical outside (so to speak).

[SteveII]

The fact that the phylogenetic tree is not as predicted and has problems matching the data to the theory means there is still much to learn and still much to prove to get 'common ancestry' to the point where we know how it works. If we don't know how it works how can you call it a fact? If common ancestry is not a fact and still only a theory, then the big picture of evolution (defined as end-to-end explanation of the diversity of life, common ancestry, decent with modifications) is also not a fact, but only a theory. Is that a fair assessment?

If you want a link:

Antonis Rokas , Sean B Carroll
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/art...io.0040352

That is what I ask theists all the time. If I ask how the world came into being, they come back with a relatively simple, "God created it." Ask them for facts, and they will seldom bring anything to the table apart from the usual lines spouted by everyone else who is linked with any religion in this world. So, if "God created the earth", and you cannot bring facts to the table, this in itself is a "theory", and in this "theory", the definition is "hunch", a "notion", a "prescience", or why not "funny feeling", instead. You'll be surprised to find the antonyms of this:

"Knowledge", "Trust", "Reason", "Proof", "Truth", etc etc.

So, you have a "funny feeling", that God created the earth and all beings too. You are not certain of this. 

I have a link just for you and perhaps other theists (I don't know if you are a theist or not so, apologies in advance if you are not)

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19

Did I call anything related to God creating the world a 'fact'? No, so you are answering my question with "you don't have any facts either"?

[LadyForCamus]

That is what I ask theists all the time. If I ask how the world came into being, they come back with a relatively simple, "God created it." Ask them for facts, and they will seldom bring anything to the table apart from the usual lines spouted by everyone else who is linked with any religion in this world. So, if "God created the earth", and you cannot bring facts to the table, this in itself is a "theory", and in this "theory", the definition is "hunch", a "notion", a "prescience", or why not "funny feeling", instead. You'll be surprised to find the antonyms of this:

"Knowledge", "Trust", "Reason", "Proof", "Truth", etc etc.

So, you have a "funny feeling", that God created the earth and all beings too. You are not certain of this. 

I have a link just for you and perhaps other theists (I don't know if you are a theist or not so, apologies in advance if you are not)

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19

Did I call anything related to God creating the world a 'fact'? No, so you are answering my question with "you don't have any facts either"?

If you don't consider the existence of God a 'fact', why do you spend so much time here arguing in favor of him? Why do you attempt to demonstrate "factual" evidence for his existence? This is just more backing safely away from your claims in order to avoid the burden of proof in EVERY theistic discussion that goes on here, Steve.

Step one in having an intellectually honest conversation with people:

Stand behind your own beliefs.

[SteveII]

So, since Steve didn't do very well trying persuade us that his 2,000 year old book of hearsay is "irrefutable proof" of God, he's now over here arguing the "you can't prove evolution" ignorance fallacy?  

...Which has been shot down ad nauseam, and has nothing to do with building a positive case for Christianity....

What a complete waste of everyone's time.  Thanks, man.  

Your reading comprehension has not improved since the last thread. Please stop trialing behind my posts and reinterpreting what I said somewhere else, what I am saying here and then declaring some sort of combination of victory followed by some sort of derogatory sentence. The pattern is getting old and is quite childish.

[The Grand Nudger]

Like imagining that someone said to you, precisely what you wanted to hear..that -they- had no facts? That there was some sort of rough equivalence?

[LadyForCamus]

So, since Steve didn't do very well trying persuade us that his 2,000 year old book of hearsay is "irrefutable proof" of God, he's now over here arguing the "you can't prove evolution" ignorance fallacy?  

...Which has been shot down ad nauseam, and has nothing to do with building a positive case for Christianity....

What a complete waste of everyone's time.  Thanks, man.  

Your reading comprehension has not improved since the last thread. Please stop trialing behind my posts and reinterpreting what I said somewhere else, what I am saying here and then declaring some sort of combination of victory followed by some sort of derogatory sentence. The pattern is getting old and is quite childish.

Oh, please. I'm not trailing you, lol. This is a public forum. Also, are you trying to say you weren't attempting to demonstrate proof of God in the 'real religion' thread? Because, that's dishonest as well. Keep in mind that people remember what you say in past discussions. You don't get a reset every time you jump threads, and your reputation will follow you.

And as always, if I have misrepresented your position, feel free to...ya know...actually clarify what it is rather than just complain about being straw manned.

[Mister Agenda]

I understand the difference between fact and theory and that the word 'theory' has multiple meanings.  When I use them both in the same sentence however, my meaning is clear. So, when every third atheist tells me evolution is a fact, I should continue to remind them that only parts of it are fact. 

When you use the same word with multiple meanings in the same sentence without making your meaning-switching explicit, you are equivocating and it's a form of lying when you do it deliberately and understand that it causes confusion. Since you complain about every third atheist complaining about this, you're aware. That just makes you a persistent liar.

Evolution is a fact. Gravity is a fact. The theory of evolution is a theory. The theory of gravity is a theory.

You don't have to be this stupid, it's a choice.

[Mister Agenda]

Are you suggesting that Common Ancestry theory is not a component (from the beginning with Darwin) of the overall Theory of Evolution? And hypothetically if Common Ancestry is found to be incorrect, it would not call into question the larger theory? You seem to be intentionally mixing definitions of evolution to preserve 'fact' status.

It is definitely not a component in the sense (universal common descent) you're implying. An organism could be found tomorrow completely unrelated to other life on earth, and it wouldn't affect the theory of evolution in the slightest. It would just mean life began more than once. It would mean there are two trees of life. Universal common descent is merely a probabilistic conclusion supported by the fact that we've yet to find life that is not genetically related to all other life.

It would be a wonderful find, even though it would almost certainly be unicellular, that would shed much light on the science of evolution and the origin of life.

[RobertE]

That is what I ask theists all the time. If I ask how the world came into being, they come back with a relatively simple, "God created it." Ask them for facts, and they will seldom bring anything to the table apart from the usual lines spouted by everyone else who is linked with any religion in this world. So, if "God created the earth", and you cannot bring facts to the table, this in itself is a "theory", and in this "theory", the definition is "hunch", a "notion", a "prescience", or why not "funny feeling", instead. You'll be surprised to find the antonyms of this:

"Knowledge", "Trust", "Reason", "Proof", "Truth", etc etc.

So, you have a "funny feeling", that God created the earth and all beings too. You are not certain of this. 

I have a link just for you and perhaps other theists (I don't know if you are a theist or not so, apologies in advance if you are not)

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19

Did I call anything related to God creating the world a 'fact'? No, so you are answering my question with "you don't have any facts either"?

Therefore I have to stand by the default response, unlike you. If you cannot give proof that God created the universe, earth, the species and of course, all the nasty bacteria and viruses that kill people, then you have to accept the consequences of being ridiculed. Personally, I don't mind christians, muslims, sikhs or hindus on this forum, since some are nice to talk to. However, when it comes to evolution, you stand by a 2,000+ year old theory that the world was created in 7 days. For example, what makes Noah so special that he has to live to hundreds of years old, when even today, the life expectancy of someone who lives in Sierra Leone is around 49 years of age for a male? As for evolution in itself, it is still happening. Have you ever asked yourself as to why elephants have smaller tusks compared to over a 100 years ago? Here is an article that shows that God isn't behind this miracle of nature. Without realising it, poachers have indeed inadvertently aided evolution and proved Darwins theory.

[RobertE]

It is definitely not a component in the sense (universal common descent) you're implying. An organism could be found tomorrow completely unrelated to other life on earth, and it wouldn't affect the theory of evolution in the slightest. It would just mean life began more than once. It would mean there are two trees of life. Universal common descent is merely a probabilistic conclusion supported by the fact that we've yet to find life that is not genetically related to all other life.

It would be a wonderful find, even though it would almost certainly be unicellular, that would shed much light on the science of evolution and the origin of life.

It is a weird thought to be honest Mister don't you think? Should scientists be able to recreate the big bang and the primordial soup with the right conditions, they could create life, or am I on the wrong train of thought here?