Transitional Fossils - your missing m...

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#183 Jan 25, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed from the scientific perspective all that you mention here could be propaganda.
Those that observed any related events occur know if they occurred, the rest are just blind believers if they believe.
Are these stories real? I don't care and they're irrelevant for science because it can not test them.
The question is, do You blindly believe these stories to be true?
You're a bigger fool than I thought, and that's saying something.
humble brother

Finland

#184 Jan 26, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
No, try again.
Sure. I will let you be the one provide the specific answer so that all here will understand your position:

There are two logical possibilities for your position on the philosophy of science:
1. natural science allows producing hypotheses for natural phenomena believed to have occurred but not observed to occur
or
2. natural science does not allow producing hypotheses for phenomena only believed to have occurred (lack of observation of occurrence)

These logical positions are extremely clear and mutually exclusive. The ball is now in your court. Tell all here which one of these two describes your position on the philosophy of science.

Which one is it for you?
humble brother

Finland

#185 Jan 26, 2014
Bluenose wrote:
You're a bigger fool than I thought, and that's saying something.
And then you proceed into foolish assertions.

Tell me. Do you think can science work on that which can not be tested? This is again a simple yes / no question.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#186 Jan 26, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
And then you proceed into foolish assertions.
Tell me. Do you think can science work on that which can not be tested? This is again a simple yes / no question.
Evolution makes testable and falsifiable predictions.

The fact that it has been supported by every test and not falsified by any is what makes it a valid, and confirmed, scientific theory.

But that only means "proven" beyond all reasonable doubt.

Unreasonable doubt can still hold sway over some like you.

Its logically possible that all the evidence of paleontology, geology, genomics, cosmology, anatomy, archeology, and so on were faked by God a mere 6000 years ago.

Logically possible, but not reasonable.
humble brother

Finland

#187 Jan 26, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
Evolution makes testable and falsifiable predictions.
The fact that it has been supported by every test and not falsified by any is what makes it a valid, and confirmed, scientific theory.
But that only means "proven" beyond all reasonable doubt.
Here you have gone wrong miserably. Science requires falsifiability and thus no theory is ever proven, scientific theories are all always possibly false and never known to be true.

Do you seriously think science allows producing hypotheses for "natural phenomena" that have not been observed to occur but only believed to occur? Yes or no?
Chimney1 wrote:
Unreasonable doubt can still hold sway over some like you.
Nonsense. Accepting all the possibilities is not unreasonable. Your reluctance to accept the possibility of fallacy in your case is what is unreasonable.
Chimney1 wrote:
Its logically possible that all the evidence of paleontology, geology, genomics, cosmology, anatomy, archeology, and so on were faked by God a mere 6000 years ago.
Logically possible, but not reasonable.
You like to spew nonsense I see. The most logical explanation for how we got to this point is some sort of evolutionary process (without having any reference to who or what is in control of that process). That is still not known to be true and thus possibly false. That is also not natural science due to the lack of observation of the occurrence of the supposed natural phenomenon.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#188 Jan 27, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Dishonest conduct is the name of your game?
Not ours.Yours. Note I left your original quote for context.
humble brother wrote:
I was under the impression that You hate it when someone resorts to dishonesty and goes on twisting what You say.
Or have you grown to love it when others put words in your mouth and twist what you say?
Sure I love it. It makes you fundies look stupid and dishonest when you do that to us, and you tend to do it a lot.
humble brother wrote:
On the original subject:
Do you understand that anything that is possibly false is not fully reliable?
Correct. It can be 1% reliable. Or 99% reliable. Planes aren't 100% reliable but people still use them. Stairs aren't 100% reliable either. They could always break and you'll fall through the hole.
humble brother wrote:
You appear as someone who has grown to hold theories as sacred rather than accepting them to be falsifiable.
Except you're lying, because I have stated multiple times I accept them to be falsifiable.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#189 Jan 27, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You drop a rock multiple times and observe it fall. You call this observed phenomenon "gravity".
You go and observe traces of dead individual organisms. What observed phenomenon there can you call "evolution"?
They are called the mechanisms of evolution. We've been over them numerous times in the past, it gets tedious repeating it.
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you see your blind beliefs even now when I hand them to you on a silver platter?
Not really since your silver platter is non-existent. When you base all your silly posts on the "How do YOU know, where you THERE???" principle you've already lost, but most fundies are too stupid to see it.(shrug)

In the old days they didn't have Newton's theory of gravity, as we do. But a few of the smarter ancients did have observations of astronomical phenomena. For instance: Although (according to you) they could never know for sure if those observations were reliable because of the how do you know where you there principle (future events hadn't been observed yet, older observations may have been done by someone else, possibly even before they were born) it was still enough for them to extrapolate from that information and successfully predict solar eclipses. Nowadays we have the theory of gravity which is even more accurate, and again the theory of relativity which is even more accurate than Newton's model, and yet again quantum physics which is even more accurate than that.

Evolution is exactly the same. Because of the how do you know where you there principle we can never know for 100% certain whether it's correct. However we have observations made in the present from long dead past-living organisms, as well as observations of current organisms, and we can extrapolate from this information in order to repeatedly make successful predictions by using the scientific method. So while you are correct that there is always the small chance that they might actually find that elusive pre-Cambrian rabbit in the future, what we have is a working explanatory model which fits the facts AND can be verified via practical experiments. Since no-one has come up with a competing working explanation that does a better job, we go with the one that works, which happens to be the only one there is. And remember, since it DOES work, that means it IS scientific (contrary to your claims). All you can do is hold onto the desperate hope that your assumption that it's wrong is right.

In short, you are arguing for Last Thursdayism. A rather silly position to take to be sure, but nihilists don't care. Your psychology is a fundamental impediment to your education. You can ask Jesus for forgiveness and follow His advice and stop lying all the time, but until then? You're doomed.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#190 Jan 27, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Please stop repeating your religious mantra. Evidence is subject to belief. Natural science is a tool for explaining that which is observed to occur, not that which is believed to have occurred. Is this something that your mind can grow to understand?
And why the heck are you babbling about creationists?
Probably because you ARE one.

Remember when we first met you didn't try this nihilist philosophical bullshit until you watched us eviscerate you and your partner's long refuted creationist bullshit. Since it was quite obviously inadequate you changed tactics. And still lost.

Your dumbosity will always catch up with you.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#191 Jan 27, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you make very foolish claims. Judging by your comments here you don't really understand much but believe quite a lot.
BONG!!!

Put it down.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#192 Jan 27, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You most certainly do not understand the nature of the term "evidence".
No, clearly *you* don't.

Keep projecting Bumble Bro.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#193 Jan 27, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you have gone wrong miserably. Science requires falsifiability and thus no theory is ever proven, scientific theories are all always possibly false and never known to be true.
Do you seriously think science allows producing hypotheses for "natural phenomena" that have not been observed to occur but only believed to occur? Yes or no?
<quoted text>
Nonsense. Accepting all the possibilities is not unreasonable. Your reluctance to accept the possibility of fallacy in your case is what is unreasonable.
<quoted text>
You like to spew nonsense I see. The most logical explanation for how we got to this point is some sort of evolutionary process (without having any reference to who or what is in control of that process). That is still not known to be true and thus possibly false. That is also not natural science due to the lack of observation of the occurrence of the supposed natural phenomenon.
Bub, until you actually LEARN science, this post of yours here, along with every other post you make, is always wrong. Period.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#194 Jan 27, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
So no answer from the dude, Chimney1, MikeF & co.
I've been on a cruise for the last week. Sorry that you're not a priority of mine.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#195 Jan 27, 2014
humble brother wrote:
A question to these religious fundamentalists here (the dude, Chimney1, MikeF etc.)
Say you observe so called "evidence" of fire (a natural phenomenon). This evidence happens to be a block of charcoal.
Now, is it possible that the block of charcoal actually never was a result of a fire burning? Just yes or no will suffice.
If by 'burning' you mean flames and all that, then, yes, it can be a result of other than outright burning.

And you can stick the 'religious fundamentalists' comment up your ass.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#196 Jan 27, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you twist my words?
What I am saying is this:
- Lack of observations of occurrences of the phenomenon produces nonsense.
- Observations of actual natural phenomena occurrences followed by logical explanations produces good science.
And you are wrong.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#197 Jan 27, 2014
HillStart wrote:
<quoted text>
You either don't know what science is, or you are deliberately misrepresenting it.
Both. He knows what science actually is and how it is conducted as he's been told many times. Yet he insists that science must conform to his rules of "observation". Luckily, science doesn't give a crap about him or his rules.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#198 Jan 27, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You drop a rock multiple times and observe it fall. You call this observed phenomenon "gravity".
You go and observe traces of dead individual organisms. What observed phenomenon there can you call "evolution"?
Do you see your blind beliefs even now when I hand them to you on a silver platter?
The fossils ***ARE*** the phenomenon. Evolution is the theory explaining their change over time.

How dumbed down do you need this before you get it?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#199 Jan 27, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you make very foolish claims. Judging by your comments here you don't really understand much but believe quite a lot.
Projection at its finest.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#200 Jan 27, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You most certainly do not understand the nature of the term "evidence"
It is clear that you do not. Do you deny that fossils are evidence? Yes or no?
humble brother wrote:
If evidence is found that you have killed you neighbour, you may still in fact not have killed your neighbour. Do you agree with this? Yes or no?
Red herring.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#201 Jan 27, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed from the scientific perspective all that you mention here could be propaganda.
Those that observed any related events occur know if they occurred, the rest are just blind believers if they believe.
Are these stories real? I don't care and they're irrelevant for science because it can not test them.
The question is, do You blindly believe these stories to be true?
Those that observed any related events occur know if they occurred, the rest are just blind believers if they believe?

You're a loony. I've observed that so I know it to be correct.

Since: Jan 14

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#202 Jan 27, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you have gone wrong miserably. Science requires falsifiability and thus no theory is ever proven, scientific theories are all always possibly false and never known to be true.
Do you seriously think science allows producing hypotheses for "natural phenomena" that have not been observed to occur but only believed to occur? Yes or no?
The answer is yes, you are allowed to produce any hypothesis you like. Of course, if you can't test it, then it's worthless. Many hypotheses have been advanced before the necessary observations were made to test them - that's pretty normal.

Also, I still don't think you know what the word "falsifiable" means. You do realise something can be both true and falsifiable, don't you? For example, "there are no unicorns living in Times Square" is, I believe, both true and falsifiable.
humble brother wrote:
You like to spew nonsense I see. The most logical explanation for how we got to this point is some sort of evolutionary process (without having any reference to who or what is in control of that process). That is still not known to be true and thus possibly false. That is also not natural science due to the lack of observation of the occurrence of the supposed natural phenomenon.
I can't parse your last sentence, so I'll ignore it. The odds in favour of evolution are 99.9999999999%. It's not quite 100%, but it's so close even your accountant wouldn't care about the difference.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 min Eagle 12 - 32,581
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 46 min Endofdays 79,855
What's your religion? 2 hr Zog Has-fallen 2
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr Science 222,737
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr Science 163,736
Life started in Tennessee proof. Sep 15 Science4life 1
Science News (Sep '13) Sep 8 Ricky F 4,001
More from around the web