 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 5th, 2009 05:10 am |
|
And speaking of people out of their depth, Hiram seems to have done his usual drive-by post-and-run trick. Post some crap, then bail and hide the moment someone comes out and demolishes it.
____________________
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1870 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 5th, 2009 05:15 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: And speaking of people out of their depth, Hiram seems to have done his usual drive-by post-and-run trick. Post some crap, then bail and hide the moment someone comes out and demolishes it.
Come on, be fair! If you were him, would you try to defend the bullshit he posts?
-- A2SG, no one can be expected to have to do that!
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 5th, 2009 03:00 pm |
|
Aldaron wrote: Ad yet we can observe that Alpha Centauri has gravity. Are you unfamiliar with the fact that gravity bends light?
That's just a theory, Stiggy.
And so therefore it's not a FACT, as Jack Flash claims evolution is. Strange. We can empirically verify a mere theory by OBSERVING gravity bending light, while an alleged FACT cannot be empirically verified at all.
I think you and Jack Flash have a back-asswards view of the scientific method of inquiry.
Gravitation theory makes all kinds of predictions, but the simple fact is that nobody has watched anything fall towards Alpha Centauri A, hence there is no empirical evidence it has gravity. Wow...this is easy...
Indeed. Empirically verifying the fact that celestial bodies possess gravity is easy. Meanwhile, empirically verifying the alleged fact that humans evolved from a lower species is impossible.
Coming on the heels of your comment about Alpha Centauri, this comment is particularly curious. We cannot directly observe a human being evolving from another species:
Correct. It's simply not possible. And yet that doesn't stop Jack Flash from Waco from claiming it as a fact.
however, we can observe the results of human evolution (which I've linked you to),
There was absolutely nothing in your link indicating that we can "observe" the results of human evolution. Calling them "results" obviously gets the cart before the horse, cause and effect-wise.
If we can use gravitation theory to predict what would happen if Alpha Centauri A has gravity, and use observation to confirm the result of those predictions, why can we not use evolutionary theory to predict what would happen if humans evolved from earlier forms, and use observation to confirm the result of those predictions?
How absurd. We can empirically verify the fact that matter bends light. We can even mathematically determine the relationship between the mass of the matter and the bending of the light.
We cannot observe a species evolving into a higher species while the original species survives a new altered environment, leaving the original to go extinct. We never have and never will.
Human evolution has occurred over hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years. It is as impossible to show, literally, a species evolving into humans as it is to show a hammer falling into the surface of Alpha Centauri A.
Again, how absurd. We can empirically verify at this very moment that the moon has mass and therefore bends light. As far as evolution, you cannot currently verify squat. We can SEE matter bend light. When did you SEE a species evolve from a lower one?
You need to give up this absurd gravity analogy. We live in gravity. We experience it daily. No one on earth has ever experience evolution.
But because we see how gravity exists, and we have formulated theories on how it works,
Theories which can be verified this very day.
we can predict pretty damn certainly that a hammer will fall into the surface of a distant star.
Yep. And of course we can achieve no such certainty with evolutionary theory.
Just as we can see how evolution exists (from observing it in other species),
And yet we can't and never have.
I'm dropping this here and now.
Good idea. Always best to quit when behind.
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 5th, 2009 03:14 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: That would be called growth. Let me know when you see a human being evolve from another species. That should make news.
Who ever said that happened? Sure as hell wasn't Darwin.
Who ever said anything about Darwin? Sure as hell wasn't me.
Jack Flash said evolution was a fact. I pointed out to him that facts need to be empirically verifiable. Neither you nor Jack Flash have ever verified any species evolving into another species.
evolution doesn't occur within a single individual, it occurs within species over a long span of time.
Then tell us how this was empirically observed. How does an observer with a life-span of 80 years max, empirically observe something over a long period of time?
-- A2SG.....your show.........so damn entertaining...
Yeah. What would be entertaining would be for you to tell us about you OBSERVED the evolving of species A into species B by a random mutation, causing the survival of B and the extinction of A from an altered environment more adaptable to the latter.
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
JackFlash
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Aug 3rd, 2009 |
| Location: | Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 89 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 5th, 2009 03:53 pm |
|
stiggywiggy wrote:
And so therefore it's not a FACT, as Jack Flash claims evolution is. Strange. We can empirically verify a mere theory by OBSERVING gravity bending light, while an alleged FACT cannot be empirically verified at all.
I think you and Jack Flash have a back-asswards view of the scientific method of inquiry.
Jack never claimed that evolution is a fact. What I said is: The term "scientific theory" is misleading; it is actually pretty much a fact. Then I stated: Genetics has proved Darwin to be correct
I never said that evolution is a fact.....
Darwin did not write a book on evolution, he merely explained why birds on one island looked different than birds on another island. I see that you are your usual self, arguing for 3 pages about something I never said.
Point.....Game
Let's go grab a beer. 
ps...the correct term is bass ackwards.
Last edited on Wed Aug 5th, 2009 07:13 pm by JackFlash
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 5th, 2009 06:36 pm |
|
JackFlash wrote: stiggywiggy wrote:
And so therefore it's not a FACT, as Jack Flash claims evolution is. Strange. We can empirically verify a mere theory by OBSERVING gravity bending light, while an alleged FACT cannot be empirically verified at all.
I think you and Jack Flash have a back-asswards view of the scientific method of inquiry.
Jack never claimed that evolution is a fact. What I said is: The term "scientific theory" is misleading; it is actually pretty much a fact.
It is pretty much a fact? What is? What is the antecedent of "it?"
I never said that evolution is a fact.....
Oh, OK. I guess we'll just have to guess what word you meant as the antecedent of "it."
At this point, we only know that you think something, we're not sure what, is a fact.
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
JackFlash
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Aug 3rd, 2009 |
| Location: | Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 89 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 5th, 2009 07:05 pm |
|
stiggywiggy wrote:
JackFlash wrote: stiggywiggy wrote:
And so therefore it's not a FACT, as Jack Flash claims evolution is. Strange. We can empirically verify a mere theory by OBSERVING gravity bending light, while an alleged FACT cannot be empirically verified at all.
I think you and Jack Flash have a back-asswards view of the scientific method of inquiry.
Jack never claimed that evolution is a fact. What I said is: The term "scientific theory" is misleading; it is actually pretty much a fact.
It is pretty much a fact? What is? What is the antecedent of "it?"
I never said that evolution is a fact.....
Oh, OK. I guess we'll just have to guess what word you meant as the antecedent of "it."
At this point, we only know that you think something, we're not sure what, is a fact.
Maybe you do have a reading comprehension problem. Or, maybe English is not your primary language.
You can't read basic English, you don't seem to know the difference between Darwinism and Evolution and you don't have a clue about the definition of a "Scientific Theory."
All you are doing here is pissing in the wind. 
Last edited on Wed Aug 5th, 2009 07:10 pm by JackFlash
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 5th, 2009 07:39 pm |
|
JackFlash wrote: stiggywiggy wrote:
JackFlash wrote: stiggywiggy wrote:
And so therefore it's not a FACT, as Jack Flash claims evolution is. Strange. We can empirically verify a mere theory by OBSERVING gravity bending light, while an alleged FACT cannot be empirically verified at all.
I think you and Jack Flash have a back-asswards view of the scientific method of inquiry.
Jack never claimed that evolution is a fact. What I said is: The term "scientific theory" is misleading; it is actually pretty much a fact.
It is pretty much a fact? What is? What is the antecedent of "it?"
I never said that evolution is a fact.....
Oh, OK. I guess we'll just have to guess what word you meant as the antecedent of "it."
At this point, we only know that you think something, we're not sure what, is a fact.
Maybe you do have a reading comprehension problem. Or, maybe English is not your primary language.
No. "It" is an English word. So tell me what you thought its antecedent was when you used it. We know you think IT (something or other) is a fact. What do you think is a fact?
You can't read basic English,
And yet I obviously can, since the word whose antecedent about which I am inquiring is an English word. Were you thinking "it" was Spanish? Greek?
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
JackFlash
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Aug 3rd, 2009 |
| Location: | Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 89 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 5th, 2009 07:56 pm |
|
The term "scientific theory" is misleading; it is actually pretty much a fact.
Look at the sentence you fucking moron. Do I have to give you an English lesson? The work "IT" is preceeded by the term "scientific theory"
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 5th, 2009 08:21 pm |
|
JackFlash wrote: The term "scientific theory" is misleading; it is actually pretty much a fact.
Look at the sentence you fucking moron
Being the alleged fucking moron that I am, I am looking at it right now. Here is the sentence that I, the alleged fucking moron, am looking at. It is your sentence:
"The term "scientific theory" is misleading; it is actually pretty much a fact."
Do I have to give you an English lesson?
You're gonna need to do something to explain what the antecedent of "it" is above.
The work "IT" is preceeded by the term "scientific theory"
That's pretty obvious. I asked you what the antecedent of "it" is. Are you now saying that it is "scientific theory."
So scientific theory is fact? So Kepler's scientific theories were fact until Copernicus came along and changed the fact that the earth is the center of the universe?
What were you saying about fucking morons, Jack?
You're not doing so hot on your return visit to AARM, are you Jack? Maybe you'd better forgo verbal answers and stick with emoticons sticking out their tongues.
Last edited on Wed Aug 5th, 2009 08:22 pm by stiggywiggy
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 6th, 2009 12:48 am |
|
Stiggy, you know how you keep asking for an example of you "stiggying"? Well, this is one. I have provided you with links to ample evidence of observed evolution and observed speciation, and you keep insisting that nobody has observed evolution.
I don't know how much plainer or simpler it can be said: "Yes we have"
Here are the links again (in some cases, direct links rather than to the main "portal" page):
Five major misconceptions about evolution (#1 is "Evolution has never been observed")
Evolution is both a fact and a theory
Observed instances of speciation
So now when you start whining about me "lecturing" you on your posting style; as in "stiggying", refer to this. You have been provided with an explanation for "A", yet you still continue to claim that "A" remains unexplained/non-existent. Every time I point this out, you quote my post and snip out the portion where I show you "A" or reiterate that "A" has been demonstrated, and answer as if I had ignored "A".
Now that I've just posted three more links to the material, I'm waiting for you to come back with something like:
Aldaron: "you keep insisting that nobody has observed evolution."
Stiggy: "because they haven't."
And you wonder why people find arguing with you tiresome? Apart from the fact that you're demonstrating over and over that you know jack shit about evolutionary theory, even when someone who does know something about it tries to point you to some information, you stamp your feet and block your ears, pretending that you can't see it.
It's embarrassing. On some stuff, you do have a vague idea about the subject matter, but you consistently show you know next to nothing about evolution, and you continue to rail against it. You're as big a caricature of a creationist/IDer as is Hiram when you get into this shit...
____________________
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 6th, 2009 01:28 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: Stiggy, you know how you keep asking for an example of you "stiggying"? Well, this is one.
Correct. I stiggy am indeed the author of that which I type. That would work for you as well. The statment that you typed to which I now reply is an example of you aldaroning. Why? Because your cyber-name is Aldaron. Isn't it fun to make gerunds out of proper nouns?
I have provided you with links
I am as uninterested in any of the hundreds of pro-evolution links as I would be in any of the hundreds of anti-evolution links. If you cannot defend your beliefs in your own words, just admit it.
ample evidence of observed evolution and observed speciation, and you keep insisting that nobody has observed evolution.
Because no one has. One may or may not have observed random mutations, but no one has ever observed a brand new species evolving from a different one, while surviving to create a new species that populates the earth. And no one has surely ever observed a human being evolving from anything, which is certainly part of the evolutionary theory that Jack Flash calls fact. In fact, humans have been on earth for thousands and thousands of years. You'd think someone would have at least once observed a fellow species-member evolving into another species. Hasn't happened. Probably never will.
I don't know how much plainer or simpler it can be said: "Yes we have"
And yet we haven't.
Here are the links again
Let me know when you're able to put your beliefs in your own words. I have no interest in aldaroning here by doing the same: i.e. typing website addresses in blue which favor my own position.
You have been provided with an explanation for "A",
And yet I haven't. I have only been provided with a website address, one which is refuted by scores of other website addresses.
yet you still continue to claim that "A" remains unexplained/non-existent. Every time I point this out, you quote my post and snip out the portion where I show you "A" or reiterate that "A"
Nope. Can't snip that which was never presented.
Aldaron: "you keep insisting that nobody has observed evolution."
Stiggy: "because they haven't."
Correct. You haven't.
And you wonder why people find arguing with you tiresome?
No I don't. I just wonder why you are unable to defend your beliefs in your own words.
Last edited on Thu Aug 6th, 2009 01:30 am by stiggywiggy
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 6th, 2009 01:31 am |
|
Ah, so we're back to Stiggy playing the high-school teacher: "You must present your essay in your own words."
If you think I'm going to re-write thousands of words (which are highly referenced and professional articles, not "Joe's Anti-Creation Website" rants) because you're too lazy to click a mouse, you're more detached from reality than I thought.
Edit to add:
And yet I haven't. I have only been provided with a website address, one which is refuted by scores of other website addresses.
So which websites have refuted TalkOrigins, Stiggy? Go ahead and post the links - I'd be curious to see them and their refutations. Note that I don't demand you refute them, I'm just interested to see these "scores" of other websites that do.
I won't hold my breath, though...
Last edited on Thu Aug 6th, 2009 01:34 am by Aldaron
____________________
|
JackFlash
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Aug 3rd, 2009 |
| Location: | Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 89 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 6th, 2009 02:21 am |
|
Aldaron wrote:
Go ahead and post the links - I'd be curious to see them and their refutations.
He has no credible links.
Did you see the documentary on the Evolution vs Intelligent Design trial in Dover Pa? A conservative, Bush II appointed judge who believed in ID fell on the side of evolution after the evidence was all presented. Also, the Christian members of the school board were proved to be liars, as were the leaders of the ID movement.
Last edited on Thu Aug 6th, 2009 02:24 am by JackFlash
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 6th, 2009 02:38 am |
|
Also, the Christian members of the school board were proved to be liars, as were the leaders of the ID movement.
That doesn't surprise me at all. They have to lie to have anyone even come close to accepting their bugshit crazy nonsense as anything resembling the truth. I swear if I hear some idiot bleat "Tornado in a junkyard" or the like one more time I'm going to belt my head against a brick wall.
I am yet to encounter one single Creationist/IDer who actually understands evolution. Seriously. I've never, ever met one. Every single one I've encountered puts forth nonsense like Stiggy has been doing in this thread: "Show me where a species evolved into humans" without the slightest clue as to how ignorant it makes them look.
It would be like me trying to discredit Christianity by repeatedly shouting that, oh, I dunno...it was Jesus having honey and not strawberry jam on his waffles that led to the forgiveness of sins.
Because they don't have the first clue about evolution, they can blather on with these ludicrous statements without even realising how absurd they are.
Of course, Stiggy's a special case. I actually don't think he has a problem with evolution at all - I think he's just trying to piss people off, which is his wont. I just get cranky when all he ever does is snip "A" in someone's post and then whine that they haven't addressed "A". He's been doing that to me for most of this thread.
____________________
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1870 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 6th, 2009 04:39 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: That would be called growth. Let me know when you see a human being evolve from another species. That should make news.
Who ever said that happened? Sure as hell wasn't Darwin.
Who ever said anything about Darwin? Sure as hell wasn't me.
Then who did say that individuals evolve into different species? Since that's who you seem to be arguing against.
No one here has ever said that. Everyone else here seems to have at least a layman's understanding of what evolution is. Everyone, that is, except you.
Jack Flash said evolution was a fact.
He said it "pretty much" is, and he's correct. Evolution has been observed and demonstrated eight ways to Sunday, over and over again.
I pointed out to him that facts need to be empirically verifiable. Neither you nor Jack Flash have ever verified any species evolving into another species.
And yet, Aldaron linked you to tons of evidence about what evolution really is and how it really works.
You ignored it, as usual.
evolution doesn't occur within a single individual, it occurs within species over a long span of time.
Then tell us how this was empirically observed.
Read the links Aldaron provided.
How does an observer with a life-span of 80 years max, empirically observe something over a long period of time?
Read and wonder no more!
-- A2SG.....your show.........so damn entertaining...
Yeah. What would be entertaining would be for you to tell us about you OBSERVED the evolving of species A into species B by a random mutation, causing the survival of B and the extinction of A from an altered environment more adaptable to the latter.
I never said any of that.
Aldaron has tried, several times, to give you information on what evolution really is, and how it really works, since you seem totally ignorant on the subject. You've ignored it all.
Now, you can continue to flaunt your ignorance on this subject or you can take the opportunity to learn something.
It's all up to you.
-- A2SG, no skin off my nose either way, really....
Last edited on Thu Aug 6th, 2009 06:32 am by Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 7th, 2009 12:04 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: Ah, so we're back to Stiggy playing the high-school teacher: "You must present your essay in your own words."
If you think I'm going to re-write thousands of words (which are highly referenced and professional articles, not "Joe's Anti-Creation Website" rants) because you're too lazy to click a mouse, you're more detached from reality than I thought.
No need to go to all that trouble. It should be a simple thing. Jack Flash had said that evolution is a fact. I reminded him that good scientific theory requires facts to be validated via empirical evidence. So I asked him when he had ever observed a particular species "evolving" into another species.
Actually, I'll admit I did begin with a more difficult task for Jack to validate his claim. I assumed that he accepted as "fact" that humans evolved from lower species, so I asked him when he had empirically observed a human evolving from a lower species. I then lowered the bar to fruit flies. Naturally, he never replied. Maybe he was busy evolving.
If your answer is simply that it CAN'T be observed due to the time factor, you are merely presupposing that which you're out to prove, no matter how many websites you might provide that explain away the allegedly unique inability of, and thus an exemption for, evolutionary theory (i.e fact?) to abide by the principles of scientific inquiry.
Last edited on Fri Aug 7th, 2009 12:19 am by stiggywiggy
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 7th, 2009 12:17 am |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: That would be called growth. Let me know when you see a human being evolve from another species. That should make news.
Who ever said that happened? Sure as hell wasn't Darwin.
Who ever said anything about Darwin? Sure as hell wasn't me.
Then who did say that individuals evolve into different species?
Hardly matters. Jack Flash from Waco had said that evolution was a fact. He has never empirically observed a collective species evolve, any more than he has observed an individual evolve.
Jack Flash said evolution was a fact.
He said it "pretty much" is, and he's correct.
So does that mean that he "pretty much" empirically observed a situation in which a more environmentally adaptable species survived their less adaptable lower-speciated ancestors?
Did he "pretty much" throw the scientific method of inquiry out the window in his proclamation of fact?
Evolution has been observed
Yeah. Right. You keep telling yourself that.
Anybody here capable of telling me how evolution was empirically observed? I see you all have a talent for googling shit favorable to your own position and then cutting and pasting the web address from whence it came, and posting it up with little blue words. Is that to show how far you've all evolved from a kindergarten child with a bottle of paste and some light little scissors?
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 7th, 2009 12:22 am |
|
No need to go to all that trouble. It should be a simple thing. Jack Flash had said that evolution is a fact. I reminded him that good scientific theory requires facts to be validated via empirical evidence. So I asked him when he had ever observed a particular species "evolving" into another species.
And I provided you with links to a website giving you exactly what you asked for, cited and referenced. You have repeatedly ignored this and claimed nobody has provided you with any evidence.
Like this is a big surprise for anyone used to arguing with you...
Actually, I'll admit I did begin with a more difficult task for Jack to validate his claim. I assumed that he accepted as "fact" that humans evolved from lower species, so I asked him when he had empiricaly observed a human evolving from a lower species.
Which you either know is a ridiculous, nonsensical question (if you know anything about evolution) or you don't realise is a ridiculous, nonsensical question (if you don't know anything about evolution).
Either way, it's a ridiculous, nonsensical question on a par with me demanding to know when you actually saw Jesus wearing cushioned insoles...
I then lowered the bar to fruit flies. Naturally, he never replied. Maybe he was busy evolving.
Or maybe he knew that the links I had already provided went into extensive detail about fruit fly speciation. Something which you would have known if you'd bothered to look at it.
If your answer is simply that it CAN'T be observed due to the time factor, you are merely presupposing that which you're out to prove, no matter how many websites you might provide that explain away the allegedly unique inability of, and thus an exemption for, evolutionary theory (i.e fact?) to abide by the principles of scientific inquiry.
And this is why I brought up the Alpha Centauran gravity factor. You seem to be under the impression that "empirical evidence = saw with my own eyes". You have a science degree, Stiggy; you know that's bullshit as well as I do.
Nobody has seen gravity working on Alpha Centauri A. We see it working here (things fall down) and we see evidence for it working there (gravitational lensing, Alpha Centauri B's perturbed orbit, etc). And we draw what, to most people, is a reasonable conclusion: that Alpha Centauri A has gravity.
The exact same thing applies to evolution. We see it occurring in short-lived species (like fruit flies or bacteria), and we see evidence for it working in humans (our genetic relationship to other animals, which becomes more tenuous as we move further away from those related to us, morphological evidence in the fossil record, etc). And we draw what, to most people, is a reasonable conclusion: that humans have/are evolved/evolving that same as all other species.
Not individuals, Stiggy. Individuals don't evolve, populations do.
And you are the one who keeps insisting on us showing you human evolution occurring before your very eyes. You demanded to know how we know evolution is a fact. I provided you with that - links to cited and referenced articles which explain how evolution has been observed in both nature and the lab.
Then you switched to demanding to know when we saw human evolution occurring under our noses, and are crowing victory because we've explained that it happens over millions of years.
Tell me this: do you think a jury can convict a person of murder based on evidence, as opposed to actually seeing the murder committed (such as through a CCTV camera)? If a prosecutor shows that the victim, raped and murdered, has the defendant's DNA under her fingernails and elsewhere, if the defendant was seen in the area of the crime and the victim's DNA was found in the boot of the defendant's car, should we simply discount this evidence? Because nobody on the jury saw the attack?
I'm still waiting for those "scores" of websites that refute TalkOrigins, by the way...Last edited on Fri Aug 7th, 2009 01:19 am by Aldaron
____________________
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 7th, 2009 01:42 am |
|
Anybody here capable of telling me how evolution was empirically observed? I see you all have a talent for googling shit favorable to your own position and then cutting and pasting the web address from whence it came, and posting it up with little blue words. Is that to show how far you've all evolved from a kindergarten child with a bottle of paste and some light little scissors?
I've told you several times. The fact that you have some kind of bizarre aversion to reading links is your problem, not mine. If you want to insist on people telling you complicated stuff, cross-referenced with primary sources, in their own words, go be a high school teacher.
For here, I'm not paraphrasing extensively researched and well-cited documents simply to keep you from clicking your fucking mouse button, Stiggy.
The links are there. Read the stuff to your heart's content. Or not.
But if you refuse to, don't come back complaining that nobody will give you the information/evidence you're after, because it's been given to you time and time again - you're simply too lazy to read it.
____________________
|
Current time is 09:09 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7   |
|
|
|
|
