Goose wrote:
Divine Insight wrote:Your house is not a natural object. It's an object that you or other humans have built. So this is an extremely bogus argument on your behalf.
You are avoiding the salient point. Your definition of evolution is entirely circular and easily falsified with a few counter examples which is all I need since you’ve made the definition universal. Don’t like the house counter example? Okay, let’s look at a rock jutting out of river or a tree in a forest. Repeated observations tell me that rock won’t become more complex. It will eventually erode away. The tree will eventually die and decompose not become more complex. Your own definition falsifies evolution.
You are being totally unreasonable.
What I claim to have defined was "evolution" as it occurs within the universe via observation. I did not claim to be demanding that all objects must necessarily evolve to become more complex. On the contrary the actually processes of both evolution and erosion are well-known scientifically and both are described sufficiently.
Moreover, erosion is not the opposite of evolution.
The process through which atoms evolved to become minerals within stars is well-known. How rocks are formed is well-known. How rock erode is well-known.
The arguments that you are given are not even rational. On the contrary all you have done is make a completely uninformed personal objection to things that you are clearly either totally ignorant of, or pretending to be in extreme denial of.
These processes are taught in high schools. And they are elaborated on in great detail in colleges.
What you are attempting to argue for is absolute nonsense that doesn't even remotely acknowledge or recognize the human intellectual understanding of these things.
Goose wrote:
Actually evolution has been observed countless times. It's been observed in fossil records,
Let’s clarify this shall we? Evolution has been
interpreted to have occurred in the fossil record, it has never been
observed to occur in the fossil record.
I disagree completely. The evidence is overwhelming. To pretend that it's some sort of vague interpretation is indeed a pretense.
Moreover, even if I were to grant your absurd claim on this matter, the fossil record still shows without question than many species have indeed become extinct. No interpretation required there for sure. In fact, we have even observed species becoming extinct within human history.
So your job (if you want to reject evolution) is to come up with a better explanation. What do you have to offer? Creationism?
A creator God who creates thousands of species only to let them go extinct again almost instantly? Why would a creator bother doing that? Or is he so inept that he's playing trial and error?
Apparently you object to evolution but you don't have a better explanation to offer other than a totally inept bumbling creator. And where is there any evidence for that?
Goose wrote:
and it's also been observed in the laboratory.
No, the fact is a bacteria-like critter has
never been observed to evolve into anything other than a bacteria -- something like a worm-like critter for instance.
Science isn't concerned with your petty objections. We wouldn't expect to see that huge of a change over the time scales that we can observe live.
Your objections are uneducated and ill-informed.
Goose wrote:
The truth that evolution is indeed a fact is what keeps doctors on their toes when it comes to trying to keep up with the evolution of pathogens and viruses. In fact, we even see evolution in action dynamically in pest control in insects.
But this is an example more along the lines of adaption, not an increase in the complexity of the organism itself in the sense we need to observe in order for evolution to be true as you’ve defined it.
How are you defining complexity? And how can you say that one of these bacteria are not more complex than another?
Goose wrote:
If you think this is an argument of populum they you have grossly misunderstood.
Arguing that something is
knowledge on the basis that many people accept it is an
argumentum ad populum – end of story.
That's not my argument.
I'm talking about scientists who are actually making observations and doing experiments and actually trying to prove each other wrong.
So your objection here is totally bogus and without merit.
Goose wrote:
I'm not talking about common people on the street accepting things because they are popular. I'm talking about the fact that all scientists who work in these fields have found the same factual evidence, and there does not exist a single solitary scientist who has found any conflicting evidence that can be independently verified or agreed upon.
I've already provided you a link where there are a number of scientists, some in the field, who dissent from Darwinism. So, it’s simply incorrect to argue that
all scientists agree with evolution.
That's creationism baloney. Those "scientists" have no merit. They have nothing to offer that makes any sense or that can be independently established. Not to mention they have no better theory to offer. In fact, if they offer "Creationism" or "Intelligent Design" as an alternative theory that only proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are bogus scientists and they are really just religious people who have nothing productive to offer.
Goose wrote:
Clearly you aren't understanding the power of science if you think it's just an argument of populum. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I’m rejecting your definition of what constitutes
knowledge.
Fine. And I reject your notion of knowledge as well because you have made it crystal clear that you have no knowledge to even offer. All you have been doing in this thread thus far is whining about evolution. What do you have to offer as an alternative theory?
If you have no alternative theory then you have no
knowledge to bring to the table.
Intelligent design and creationism have already been ruled to not be legitimate science by the Supreme Court. So neither of those represent credible knowledge. Those are merely faith-based superstitions that have no intellectual merit.
Goose wrote:
The evidence for that has already been "trotted out". In fact, it's been posted on these forums repeated by Danmark. I don't currently have the link to those posts but if you like I can PM Dan and ask him for the links.
Yes please. If there are reliably repeated observations of where, let’s say, a fish-like critter gave rise to a man I’d love to see it.
A fish never instantly gave rise to a man directly. Clearly you are making absurd and unrealistic demands that aren't even claimed to be true by evolution.
Goose wrote:
But what we're talking about here is just common scientific knowledge. You should be able to study this on your own if you're truly interested in evolution instead of just supporting the nonsensical creationism objections to it.
If my objections are so nonsensical you should be able to demonstrate that quite easily. I think what’s becoming apparent is the nonsensical claim that evolution (as you’ve defined it) is a fact.
I've already demonstrated it to you sufficiently. It's not my problem that you are being unreasonable.
Goose wrote:
Science has already made the argument. They've done it convincingly and in great detail.
Sure, lot’s of argument have been made. But you implied the argument is
sound thus implying it is true. I’d like to see that sound argument if you wish to hold your position that evolution as you’ve defined is true.
Then go to college and learn about it. There are many colleges that will be more than happy to educated you on this topic.
Goose wrote:
Now, if you’d like to restate your claim to something like Darwinian type evolution is an
inference which you
believe to be true, then we have nothing further to debate. But let's not continue the charade of insisting that Darwinian evolution is an established (or even establishable for that matter) true fact.
Darwinian evolution is a fact of life. Period amen.
It has been well-established and there is no dispute over this in the scientific community at all. The only people who dispute it are religious fanatics who believe in things like creationism and intelligent design as a matter of pure faith with no evidence to back that up at all.
If you hang around with Creationists you'll probably end up thinking like they think. But if you are genuinely interested in truth, then I would suggesting hanging around with real scientists.
That's about all I can tell you.
Colleges will be more than happy to provide you with all the facts you need to know that the creationists are nothing more than religious zealots that have no legs to stand on.
You complain about evolution, but you haven't offered a credible alternative. So until then your complaints are meaningless.
