Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals

We don't have to prove. We already know the evolutionary mechanisms that wrote the fossil record. Yet, we do know. We know very well the mechanisms of evolution and how they affected life today and in deep time. No proofs necessary. Don't need to prove it. We already know. The sane person says out aloud, "Gods are asinine concepts concocted by charlatans to fleece their flock and fuck their women." (AZPaul3 7-31-22)

Science is based on evidence and not on "proof". That's the opposite of religion.

Nor do we want to. "Proof" doesn't enter into it. You might as well say we can't make ice cream out of it. You have already admitted that you are unintelligent - i.e. that you are mindless. Why would you be the one who can distinguish fact from folklore?

That's not what you've been saying. Your claim is that we "can't know", not that we can't account for it.We can account for it to everybody's satisfaction but yours - and yours doesn't count because you're an admitted idiot.

You don't uderstand what knowlege is. It isn't about "proof". It's about what works.As long as you keep talking about proof, you're just making yourself look stupid.

Well, so far your argument has failed to prove anything. The evolutionary processes left evidence that we observe is the same as the processes leave today. You keep saying "no one can", but the biologists of the world are ignoring you and carrying on with describing their observations. They sure want to, but their ID argument is completely based on religious fiction, not science. Not so much hostile, but dismissive. I don't know what happened to Bechly, but if it has biased his presentation of evidence, then the validity of all of his work should be questioned, by his colleagues.I have never heard of "rusted-on atheist biologists" before but I kind of like it, especially coming from a member of the Catholic Pedo Cult.

Just out of curiosity, if we keep telling you over and over again that science isn't in the business of proving things, that theories are accepted, not proven, will there come a point where the lightbulb finally goes on for you, or is that never going to happen?Trying to put a finer point on it, your argument only makes sense if science *were* in the business of proving things. But it's not. So your argument just makes no sense. There's that word "prove" again. Well now you're just shouting to the world, "I'm fairly unfamiliar with the creation/evolution debate in which I'm attempting to participate anyway." Haeckel is one of the most famous biologists in history. He did most of the work he's famous for in the latter half of the 1800s.Until recently he was the constant focus of creationists arguing how wrong was his claim that "ontogeny recapitulates ontology," and that Darwinists were trying to indoctrinate generations of school children by including that point as established science, even including embryo drawings from Haeckel's papers in biology textbooks, which may still be true in school districts that haven't replaced their textbooks in a really long time, like since the 1950's."Ontogeny recapitulates ontology" is just a biologically concise way of saying that embryo's go through the same stages of development as the organism's evolutionary development. Haeckel was very influential during his lifetime and was able to make this questionable claim stick. His arguments and drawings began appearing in biology textbooks, and they survived in them for a long, long time (there's a lot of inertia in the textbook industry), long after we knew Haeckel had only uncovered a sort of general tendency, not a law.Hope that clears it up for you, but the key issue is that you need a better understanding of what it is that science actually does, which definitely isn't proving anything.And you also need to take on more responsibility for moving the discussion forward. Many of your messages say almost the exact same thing, that we can't prove evolution explains the fossil record. Any sane person would recognize that not only is your broken record approach not working, it's also a horrible way of conducting yourself in a discussion. You should give some thought to alternative approaches to the discussion, ones that might actually make your point for you if it happens to be correct. The other side is telling you there are a couple important concepts that you're missing, so maybe you could look there first and see where it leads you.--Percy

You're repeating yourself once again. Maybe it would help if I pointed out that science has never proven anything in its entire history.Gravity? Unproven.Theory of Relativity? Unproven.Boyle's Gas Law? Unproven.The Standard Model? Unproven.Theories become accepted amongst the relevant scientific community via replication and the accumulation of evidence.When we say we *know* something we mean it in the scientific sense of having a broad body of supporting evidence and interpretation, not in a "rigorously proven" sense. Science doesn't deal in truth, either.--Percy

While there's no basis for the old saw that insanity is doing the same thing and expecting something different to happen, the determination with which you repeat yourself almost word for word while completely ignoring the rebuttals does bring it to mind.--Percy

You remind me of a turtle retreating into its shell.--Percy

Fine. If science can't prove that ToE describes the process responsible for producing the fossil record, then science can't claim to know how evolution works.

I don't think you've given any consideration to the implications of this claim. It's not just the ToE that Science can't prove, it's everything else, too. Science can't prove anything. Proving things is not what science does.What science does do is build interpretational frameworks of understanding around bodies of evidence, and it attempts to add to the evidence and understanding through replication and further investigation. When a framework of understanding convinces enough members of the relevant scientific community then it is said to have become accepted, but definitely not proven because, again, nothing is ever proven in science. In an informal sense we say that we now *know* something.So if you're right that science doesn't know how evolution works, then it follows that science doesn't know anything else, either. Of course we know that's not true, so your claim that science can't know how evolution works is disproven.Oh, since I've used the word "disproven" I should say that science *is* in the business of disproving things, more formally, falsifying hypotheses. A famous disproven hypothesis is that of the luminiferous ether.Another important scientific concept is tentativity. A falsified hypothesis is only tentatively falsified. Further investigation and study may force a reconsideration. Similarly, an accepted theory is only tentatively accepted. Further investigation and study may force a reconsideration.--Percy

If science can't prove that ToE describes the process responsible for producing the fossil record, then science can't claim to know how evolution works. Irrelevant to my argument. "Nearly 95% of the biologists in the National Academy of Sciences describe themselves as atheists or agnostics, a far higher percentage than in any other scientific discipline." (Larry Witham,
Where Darwin Meets the Bible (2002), pp. 271-273) Translation:"the idea that there is intelligent design in nature" = "the stream of lies and bullshit coming from the intelligent design movement"

Please stop repeating this stupid falsehood. You're making a fool of yourself. It's embarrassing to watch.

Edited by Dredge, .

In that case, if science can't prove that ToE describes the process responsible for producing the fossil record, then science can't claim to know how evolution works.