APP - Hypothetical Scenario for Thinkers

ib1yysguy said:
OH please. We have all sorts of very convincing evidence. Ask Mottley for a rundown or review any number of the threads we've done about it in the past. There is overwhelming evidence for it. Your challenge is to furnish us with evidence that there is a mechanism that limits change over time (evolution through natural selection).
Click to expand...

What a bunk response. If macro evolution were a proven theory i.e. the evidence existed, we would not even be having this conversation.
 
Ice Dancer said:
What a bunk response. If macro evolution were a proven theory i.e. the evidence existed, we would not even be having this conversation.
Click to expand...

No, the reason we're having this conversation is because you're ignorant of the mountains of evidence that does exist. This conversation does not happen in scientific circles because they're not as ignorant as your ass. You'll be unable to produce a single peer reviewed (read, vetted by the scientific community) paper falsifying the ESTABLISHED science of common descent. Please, just go read the wiki page. You look retarded.
 
By the way, you win the award for circular reasoning of the day.

"If I were wrong, I wouldn't have asked the question! Since we're having this conversation, I must be right about saying the evidence doesn't exist!"
 
Dixie has stated on numerous occasiosn that biology says that evolution is impossible.

Which is kind of funny when you consider the fact that about 99% of biology is based on evolution these days, and every paper issued in biology is issued under the assumption that evolution is correct. EVERY ONE. It's kind of strange for a discipline that contradicts evolution to essentially be the study of it, no? Not to dixie.
 
Watermark said:
Dixie has stated on numerous occasiosn that biology says that evolution is impossible.

Which is kind of funny when you consider the fact that about 99% of biology is based on evolution these days, and every paper issued in biology is issued under the assumption that evolution is correct. EVERY ONE. It's kind of strange for a discipline that contradicts evolution to essentially be the study of it, no? Not to dixie.
Click to expand...

logical fallacy...appeal to popular....i guess a billion china men defense works for you huh
 
Yurt said:
logical fallacy...appeal to popular....i guess a billion china men defense works for you huh
Click to expand...

Popularity cannot be the sole basis of an argument, but it can improve it. Unanimity improves it further. Especially when Dixie's argument that 'biology contradicts evolution' rests on biology supporting him, which it does not.

Our position on this issue has been stated several times, so I didn't think it's necessary to repeat it for you.
 
ib1yysguy said:
No, the reason we're having this conversation is because you're ignorant of the mountains of evidence that does exist. This conversation does not happen in scientific circles because they're not as ignorant as your ass. You'll be unable to produce a single peer reviewed (read, vetted by the scientific community) paper falsifying the ESTABLISHED science of common descent. Please, just go read the wiki page. You look retarded.
Click to expand...

A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

This was last publicly updated August 2008. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.
 
Ice Dancer said:
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

This was last publicly updated August 2008. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.
Click to expand...

Go ahead and show me a single published paper any of those scientists have produced that falsifies the established science of Darwinian evolution and I'll give you $100,000,000.

These scientists aren't biologists (for the most part, if any actually are) and the ones that are represent a fraction of a percent of the total scientific community. On top of that, NONE of them have produced any research that does anything to call Darwinian evolution into question.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Tell me, do you believe what Ice's paper claimed about lack of transitional forms?
Click to expand...

I haven't read Ice's paper, but the mere existence of a fossil does not scientifically prove transition, it merely proves existence.....the same creature could have been created or designed.....thus, what you call "transitional" forms is not evidence of evolution.....
 
Ice Dancer said:
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

This was last publicly updated August 2008. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.
Click to expand...
LOL You're not aware of Project Steve, are you? BTW, virtually none of the scientist on your list are either life scientist or biologist.

http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I don't have any views which are different than established science, therefore I cannot answer the question you have posed.....now, would you like to debate the statement I actually made?....this whole farce is occurring, only because you altered what I stated.....now, if you kindly oblige by identifying that which you call "established science" which is contradictory to the concept of intelligent design I would be happy to oblige....until you do so, it is impossible.....

I am more than ready to debate you, if you will only identify that which you want to debate......if you continue to refuse, I will chalk this up as another runaway by you.....
Click to expand...
Finally, you admit that you cannot back your claim up. It took three times asking you that question to get you to give an honest answer.

As for for the definition of established science. What are you? Blind? Here I'll post if for you again. I'll bold it so that maybe this time you don't miss it.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena using methodological naturalism.

As for Intelligent Design. It is in no way shape or form science and again, I defy you to support that claim. I can easily refute ID as science.

As for running away. The only one who has a history of running away, evading answering questions, using irrational arguments and just plain utterly ignoring facts when they are presented to you has been you.
 
Last edited:
ib1yysguy said:
Here's an article linked to from wikipedia that has a good run down as well

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Click to expand...

from that article we can quickly determine the error....

The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life.
Click to expand...

yet I can give one immediately.....they were created that way....

in short, he reaches his conclusions because he rejects any argument which does not meet his belief system's standards......
 
ib1yysguy said:
That's right. The idea of "macro" evolution isn't science at all. Biology doesn't distinguish between micro and macro evolution since there is no mechanism that limits change over time.

Evolution, speciation, common ancestry ARE very much established science. Take it up with Mott, our resident biology masters degree holder.
Click to expand...
Actually, for the sake of honesty, my BA is in human biology and I did do graduate work in human biology but eventually earned a masters in EH&S management. I'm also a CHMM. That's really not that relevent for two reasons.

The topics were discussing are high school level biology. Second, I'm not about to waste my time with PMP as with Dixie, he's an intellectually dishonest debater. He doesn't answer direct questions, he doesn't know what science or theory is and repeatedly ignores demonstrating a basic knowldege when requested. He evades questions, he completely ignores facts when presented to him and he spins circular arguments that make little or no sense at all.

With that being the case, unless there is an audience here that wishes me to write a technical discussion on the evidence supporting evolutionary theory I can't see wasting the considerable amount of time it would take to write such information just for the purpose of educating PMP who would just ignore it anyways.

I would refer PMP to go an peruse talk origins and study the topic there and then come back when he can discuss it with out sounding foolish.

http://www.talkorigins.org/
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Finally, you admit that you cannot back your claim up.
Click to expand...

no dimwit, I admit I can't back up YOUR claim....


As for for the definition of established science. What are you? Blind? Here I'll post if for you again. I'll bold it so that maybe this time you don't miss it.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena using methodological naturalism.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking you for a definition of established science....I am asking you to identify the established science you believe I am denying.....

As for running away. The only one who has a history of running away, evading answering questions, using irrational arguments and just plain utterly ignoring facts when they are presented to you has been you.
Click to expand...

except, you've just posted and done it again....keep coming back....maybe you will eventually develop enough nerve to actually debate.....in the meantime, maybe ibbie will carry your balls for you.....
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Second, I'm not about to waste my time with PMP as with Dixie, he's an intellectually dishonest debater. He doesn't answer direct questions, he doesn't know what science or theory is and repeatedly ignores demonstrating a basic knowldege when requested. He evades questions, he completely ignores facts when presented to him and he spins circular arguments that make little or no sense at all.
Click to expand...

don't even pretend to be a debater......you haven't got the balls to answer a single question.....it isn't a matter of time, it's a matter of fear.....(nannernannernanner)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top