Evolution has been Disproven

Ah, so you are an evolutionist, then? After all evolution is the only way to get from 16,000 animals to 80 billion species. Actually since you're talking about 79 billion new species in 3000 years you're really a kind of super-evolutionist, I guess...

So, you don't think you need new information for bacteria to digest nylon? You don't think you need new information for a single dog-like ancestor pair to give rise to wolves, Basset hounds, jackals, and hyenas?Well, come to think of it, I don't think you do, either. I don't think there's any information in DNA at all. Just chemical structure. And there's absolutely no physical law that prevents the random creation of new chemical structures. Oh, I'm sorry. Since you were promoting Woodmorappe's model I assumed you were using Woodmorappe's timeline. If you're going to pick and choose from models, though, you might make that a little more clear.And you might as we answer the question: how long do you think all this evolution (since that's what it is; new species arising) took?

I assume then that you'd accept organisms with primitive eyes, primitive skeletal structures, and primitive limbs as evidence for evolution, then?After all, you wouldn't be the kind of guy who would ask for a certain type of evidence and claim it isn't evidence at all when presented with it, would you? Surely you wouldn't be that dishonest? What the hell does that even prove? At some level, all life is basically the same - it all relies on carbon chemistry, uses homochiral amino acids, catalyzes chemical reations to support life processes.You'll have a hard time convincing me that a jackal and a chihuahua are "basically the same" without criteria that can be used to prove that humans and chimpanzees are "basically the same" as well.This is why nobody but the ignorant take creationists like you seriously. You handwave away things that scientifically, you need to quantify. How similar is "basically the same"? How can you argue from "basically the same" if that can mean whatever you decide it to mean?

Is it? I've heard a lot of numbers, I guess. They're all estimates, pretty much. But there's certainly not less than 10 million, anyway.

No offense, but I'm not convinced your "ridiculous-sense" can make accurate predictions about what is true in the universe. Particularly since it fails to detect the enormous level of ridiculous-ness demonstrated in most of your posts.In fact it's much more likely that what you or I consider "ridiculous" is a function of cultural upbringing, not a function of what is true in the universe. I'd suggest another tack of argument because, quite frankly, nobody here gives a shit about what you might find ridiculous. I mean, I find it patently ridiculous that grown-up adults come here and relate fairy tales developed by first-century goatherds as though they were actually true; unlike you I don't expect anyone to give a damn that I find it ridiculous. Just like you I actually have to support my position with argument, not ridicule. Why? Simply because a human being was standing in the room?How come your ridiculous-sense, which you portray as so finely tuned, doesn't prick up at your own ridiculous arguments?

We're not like you, J. We don't reject any possibilities except those contradicted by evidence. We barely scratched the surface; you ran off when it got too hot for you. You never understood what I really meant, or what it would take for God to substantiate himself. You continue to labor under the misapprehension that there's no possible way I could believe in God, but that's not true. I could believe in God if he actually existed. The entire thread was you misreading me; why on Earth would I want to continue that? It's obvious that your mistaken views of what and how I believe can never be changed, because you don't want them to change. It's far more comfortable for you to believe that everyone else shares your abominable mental habits.

Doesn't creation according to the Bible, similarly, require that life came from non-life?I think you need to frame the parameters of your question a little better. People are responding to you as though you asked "doesn't evolution require that life came from non-life naturalistically, via nothing more than the laws of physics?"If that's not what you meant to ask, I'd say so if I were you.

See, that's the part I don't understand. What's the point in ever applying empiricism if, via belief, you can just jump to any conclusion you like? I have a hard time believing that you don't put empiricism over belief as a general rule in your interactions with the physical world, because otherwise you'd probably be dead now. What made you think that belief over empiricism was a good idea to apply to just this one area?

I only have that belief because, empirically, it's never happened. Also, deductively, I conclude that nobody wants to kill me that bad. I did. I ran a test called "induction", which is the source of scientific knowledge. Er, no, in fact, that's how scientific reasoning proceeds - inductvely, by extrapolating from past experience. You would be right, however, to realize that induction is fallacious.Funny, that. Scientific knowledge is fallacious. That would be why the conclusions of science are tentative, not certain. Now, I'm comfortable with a fair bit of tentativity in my life. That's why I keep an open mind. But apparently, someone terrified to death of the thought of having to proceed from an inherently uncertain basis, chooses to scrap the whole enterprise and simply have unwavering faith in their own made-up fantasy. One way to go, I guess, but I don't see in what way that's better.(Oh, and about your state. Only in Wisconsin would they name your fair city after the sound a quarter makes when you drop in in a toilet. Bloit!)This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-14-2005 02:39 PM

"Tentativity" is the word you guys are looking for, and you'll find it embraced by the entire scientific community.The problem is induction, as I think Amadeus suspects. Repeated successful trials only "prove" a general principle if induction itself is valid; the only evidence that induction is valid is that so far, it always has been. In other words induction can only be proven by induction, and therefore, is circular.So we don't really know if induction can prove anything. Thus, anything we prove through induction, that is, empiricism, must be tentative.

I'm sorry, where did I say "faith"? Where did I even imply it?Faith is certainty in the absence of evidence. Onn the other hand, the scientific method reaches tentative conclusions as a result of evidence. I don't see where faith has a part in that. If the conclusions of science were absolute and not tentative, then I think you might have an argument for faith. But that's absolutely not the case. Tentative conclusions that represent the best of our knowledge at the moment? In what way does that sound like religion?

Right. Our conclusions are always tentative. I've been telling you this, now, for three posts. Certainly. Yet, they think so tenatively. So where's the faith? Right. Scientific conclusions are tentative; religious revalation never is. So how does science sound like religion? Um, no. Tentativity only extends to proof; it doesn't extend to disproof. We can know what has been disproven so far, even though we can't know what will be disproven eventually.The reason I defend evolution and oppose creationism is that, while evolution has yet to be disproven, creationism certainly has. It's outright wrong, and its absolutely incorrect to say that there's an equal chance of creationism and evolution being wrong. That's simply incorrect. Creationism is contradicted by the evidence. There is no evidence that contradicts evolution.Your argument is essentially the argument from ignorance - because we don't know everything, we know nothing. I find that attitude immature and foolish, and certainly not compelling. Nothing. Believe in creationism all you like. But don't teach it to my kids, ok? Don't offer lies as truth to people who don't know any better.

Uh, I'm sitting in a scientific laboratory, right this very minute, surrounded by research experiments in entomology, and nobody here seems to be all that concerned with being absolutely 100% certain. In fact let me ask around. One sec.Yeah, about what I thought. Most people's experiments here have a confidence interval of about 95-99%, accounting for their chi values and the design of their experiments.Where did you get this idea that you "need to be sure"? Especially after I've been telling you that the conclusions of science are tentative, now, for four posts in a row? Um, yeah. In fact that's exactly what I told you two posts ago. That's why the conclusions of science are tenative. Not really. No more than the physics that describe the bullet leaving the gun are any sort of rationalization or justification of murder.

Faith in what?Seriously, did this make any sense to you when you wrote it? What could God possibly have faith in that he wouldn't already just know? It's impossible for God to have faith.

You're just repeating yourself. How can God have faith in himself? The need for faith comes from imperfect knowledge of self. God's perfect knowledge removes the need for faith because there's no doubt of his success.