As I said, the ToE is successful because it is purely imaginary and can't be effectively challenged for that reason. It is purely imaginary because it deals with the unwitnessed past which means you can make up just about anything you like about it without fear of being shown to be wrong. There's always a way to imagine yourself out of any issue. Just make a chart to "prove" yourself right.
This is absolutely incorrect. You have let your belief overcome all reason, evidence, and logic. That's not an admirable trait. In fact, denial of what is demonstratable in the real world is foolhardy. Try denying an oncoming train and see how far you get. (Actually, you could get quite far, but you probably wouldn't enjoy it very much).
I have seen the fossil evidence supporting the theory of evolution--you haven't. I spent several years reading the literature and studying the casts of all the major specimens and many of the lesser ones while preparing for my Ph.D. exams. In this field, your opinion is based on belief, instead of evidence, and is worth nothing. You're like the apocryphal King Cnut trying to hold back the waves with nothing but words. In your case those words are made from whole cloth, as you seem to be willing to deny any evidence without even reading it and certainly without thinking about it.
Everything I've argued on this thread is about facts in the real world, not about the Bible and not something I made up.
Not so. What you are claiming is contradicted by scientific evidence from stem to stern. What you can't misrepresent from the scientific literature you just make up from your belief. If something goes against your belief you are sure it has to be wrong, and you don't much care if your claims are internally consistent, supported by any real-world evidence, or even possible. If you can make the counter claim, to you that counts as a refutation of any evidence you disagree with, no matter how silly it actually is. That may be appropriate adherence to dogma and good apologetics, but it is the exact opposite of science.
I guess you can use an imaginary system to "make successful predictions" because after all the fulfillment of those predictions is entirely a matter of imaginatively interpreting something to fit the theory anyway.
In science, a model is a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes. It is a representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process, and in so doing provide feedback on the evidence and assumptions that went into the creation of that model. Simplified, it is "If x is true, then we will see y and z under these conditions." If y and z are seen as predicted the model is supported, else it is refuted.
Expand that several thousand times and add all the data dealing with evolution. The model of evolution is supported in all relevant cases, and is not refuted in any relevant cases. When this happens the model can be elevated to the level of a theory. But that theory is continually tested against existing and new data. Unfortunately for your side, the theory of evolution has passed all of those tests and has successfully made predictions about what should be found if the theory is correct. That suggests that the theory of evolution is accurate. Your model has been found wanting, as it not only fails to make accurate predictions but also is contracted by vast amounts of relevant evidence.
You can quibble and equivocate all you want, but that changes nothing.
Fortunately all of biology does not rely on evolutionary thinking. That too is a tenet of the ToE faith. Oh the ToE is invoked quite frequently and there's plenty of "research" done in its name, and biologists like everybody else are unfortunately steeped in the lore of the ToE so it's impossibly to avoid it, but fortunately most of that doesn't impact anything that matters in the real world. To the extent that it does impact reality, however, biology is going to start veering off into neverneverland at that point.
That is your belief, but it is not supported by facts. I assume you remember the phrase, and essay, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" that I referred you to yesterday. That is still true today. And it will remain "true" until evidence is provided to the contrary. Your "what-ifs" and denials do not constitute evidence. In fact, your grasp of science, from its terminology to its methodology to its findings seems to be either remarkably weak or totally uninformed.
I have not at any point in this discussion rejected the ToE "on religious grounds."
Sure you have. No one but religious fundamentalists holds beliefs similar to yours. If one looks at the evidence, from any culture in the world, one winds up at the same findings that have been arrived at by scientists. But if one starts with certain fundamentalists beliefs, with a great deal of effort one can ignore, deny, obfuscate, misrepresent and otherwise twist the evidence to come up with your beliefs. Its not easy to do, as those beliefs have so little connection to the real world that they simply cannot be arrived at from the evidence. They can only be arrived at through religious beliefs, so your claims to be doing science are patently false.
What's remarkable is that very few have bothered to address what I HAVE said, which is based on actual biological fact: You can't get new species without a reduction in genetic diversity, you simply cannot, it cannot happen; that means that reality goes the wrong direction for the ToE to be true. If you DO get increased genetic diversity for whatever reason, mutations, gene flow, hybridization, whatever, then you do not get new species, which is the other way reality goes the wrong direction for the ToE to be true. Either way reality defeats evolution. All the earnest testimonials, encomiums, paeans to "scientific method" and the wondrous success of the ToE, are belied by this simple biological fact.
This has been explained to you a number of times, but you simply refuse to look at what happens in the real world. Look at speciation as a fork in the road (actually a "Y"). From a narrow base there is a divergence as diversity increases through time and/or distance! There is no way you can realistically claim that overall diversity decreases! Look just at the higher primates. From a single common ancestor you end up with gorillas, chimps, bonobos, orangs, and humans. That's increased diversity no matter what you claim!
But you will have to deny this because the results contradict your religious beliefs. And of course you will continue to deny, misrepresent, obfuscate, or otherwise try to hand-wave away all of this evidence, just as you do with the rest of the evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
Sure, I guess I can go on repeating my points since you require it of me.
This is where we came in. Go ahead and just hand-wave it all away. Your hand-waving means nothing in the real world.
But if you're honest you'll end each of your posts with, "Amen!" because all you're really doing is preaching.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
™ Version 4.2
