Creationism

>Ape
Bullshit, I know a demon when I've seen one.

>Fossils
It's pronounced "Drag-on"

Evolution
>You mean world's greatest lie; things don't ever change

Science
>History isn't science; checkmate!

Not really, no. When you line up the skulls from the fossil record of the human ancestry, and ask the creationists to identify the spot where one is a non-human ape, and the other is a human, all of the creationists pick different spots. That's because there's a smooth gradual change over the available skulls. There is no missing link.

>the reality

Your straw man cartoon and you just won these spaces
>"Evolution isn't a argument"
>"It's evolutionists that shift burden of proof"

Of course it makes sense when you can always fall back on "God did it" and "God works in mysterious ways"
An omnipotent power can do anything, that's kinda the definition.

The fun part of science and math is trying to put the pieces back together without certain assumptions. Omnipotence can account for everything, no matter what evidence shows up.

That's why we should reject AoC

What'll this get me?

Science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off.

> that proves evolution
lol

Is there even a single shred of evidence for evolution ? Just one ?

...

Oh, how about the mountain of evidence, like the coincidence of the morphological tree of life and the DNA tree of life?

can you explain to me how a catastrophic flood event would result in the deposition of thinly-laminated stromatolites? or reefal deposits in life position? or well-sorted clastic sediments? remember, the biblical account says that this all happened in the space of a month and a half.

>maybe if I accuse him of not having any arguments, nobody will notice that my claims are incompatible with the evidence.

Nice b8 m8.

>proven to be disproven
wat

Of course user. Disproof can be done by a child. Proving a disproof on the other hand, that shows real mastery of mathemancy.

It's possible humans were created, or resurrected by another species that existed alongside our ancestors. Or aliens, but probably the former.

There's a lot of strange mythology, and strange things to be found. One could assume it's simply the tendencies of the machinery of the human mind within a given context to concoct such stories and have them eventually seeded into a culture, but I find it unlikely when you consider the overlap.

Who knows. Creationism is tied to religion though, so you'll only tangentially get meaningful progress from mainstream science.

The same.
It's a straw man argument.
You can't reject the argument or the data and inject the belief that just because you refuse to look at the presented evidence doesn't mean it's wrong or that people are taking it on faith.
Science doesn't utilize faith.
It utilizes empiricism.

There needs to be proof or atleast a claim of proof so peope can work on debunking it. But there is none. Evolution theory is based on conjecture with thousands of logical holes in it.

>Debunking
Has no place in science. Drop the word from your vocabulary, and drop the attitude from your mind. For your own good.

>i have no idea what science is but i think that my opinion matters

Here is where falsification would be found:
>DNA
>Sequential Phenotypes
>Predictable Outcomes Including Finds
But instead the Science is 100% tight.

Empiricism and checking is part of the Scientific Method.
If you don't understand that skepticism plays a part in Science, then you're retarded.
If you take skepticism out, then you get religion.
Proof is required for all claims.
This is called Testing, Positivism, Falsificationism/Falsifiability, Fallacy checking, Bias checking, Attribution checking, etc.

But Evolution checks out for every single one of those. 100%
Therefore Evolution is considered a viable Scientific Theory ["fact"].
It's legit.

>Empiricism and checking is part of the Scientific Method. [..., etc]
Not remotely what I'm talking about. A fixation on debunking leads to myopia. You will eventually defend even the parts of your beliefs that are left wanting in favor of tearing up and throwing out entirely any idea that threatens it. It is the attitude of the crudest and most tribal of our species, as they are only capable of working in compound frameworks and absolutes, not the underlying pieces that comprise them.

Talk less, and think more.

I believe he's doing the standard cliche of the organized skeptic movement, where "debunk" is a dirty word, because all true skeptics (tm) must come in with an open mind. Which is a frankly bullshit position, and I'd point people towards Richard Carrier and Bayesian probabilities as a proper understanding of epistemology.

What you wrote is just silly. It's some sort of fallacy, taking someone's reasonable position, then making a extreme version of it, aka a strawman, and then attacking the strawman.

>A fixation on debunking leads to myopia.
Presuppositional fallacy.
Proof?

>You will eventually defend even the parts of your beliefs that are
Presuppositional fallacy.
Proof?

Holy shit are you irrational and a broken record.

>It is the attitude of the crudest and most tribal of our species
Pretentious bullshit and you're sadly attempting to look smart. You don't. You can't be anti-empiricism and sound smart at the same time.

> as they are only capable of working in compound frameworks and absolutes, not the underlying pieces that comprise them.
Presuppositional fallacy.
Proof?
Again, you sound like a pretentious idiot.

And empiricism and skepticism IS thinking you idiot.
If you rejecting skepticism, then you're an idiot.

If you can't prove it, just say you can't prove it
If you can't prove it, just say you can't prove it
Genetic similarities "prove" evolution how ?

>DNA
>Sequential Phenotypes
>Predictable Outcomes Including Finds

None of these are proof for evolution

Not that user, but...
>Genetic similarities "prove" evolution how ?
Moron, we can see genes of you and your parents and their parents and your kids.
We understand how genes work.
There isn't any guesswork.

If there are related genes...
...then...
>drumroll
...then the genes are from related living organisms!
>tah dah!

Do you not understand the very, very, very basics of genetics?

>If you rejecting skepticism, then you're an idiot.
Again, for your benefit, I just want to point out that the other guy is repeating the mantras, aka dogmas, of the organized "skeptic" community. Don't worry too much about such people IMHO. Let them go have their bigfoot and their Roswell. That's all they're good for.

Science isn't about objective truth (that would be faith), it's about the most consistent explanation. "Prove" an alternative or show that it yields better results.

>Presuppositional fallacy.
>Proof?
Personal experience and very basic observation. ie, a series of anecdotes that have been weighted and generalized, that are true for me, and near certainly also true for you.

You can't reason without presupposition, either way. What do you "axioms" and a "logical framework" are. So this criticism is mostly rendered meaningless. For someone who frames things as fallacies, you seem to know very little about human heuristics and cognition, as well as logic itself.

>Pretentious bullshit and you're sadly attempting to look smart.
Presuppositional fallacy.
Proof?

>And empiricism and skepticism IS thinking you idiot.
Not all thought is equal. Some of it only produces garbage,

>If you rejecting skepticism, then you're an idiot.
Stop trying to debate me. I don't care if anyone walks away feeling like a "winner".

>repeating the mantras, aka dogmas, of the organized "skeptic" community.
There are no mantras and dogmas in skepticism.
Skepticism is one thing: Can you prove your claim.

>Science isn't about objective truth (that would be faith)
That is officially the most retarded thing I've ever heard. Empiricism isn't faith based, it's actually defined as the complete opposite you idiot.

Are you seriously suggesting Empiricism is nonsensical?

So, are you going to break ranks with your skeptic community leaders and agree that the religions of the world are all falsified to extremely high certainties? Or are you going to stick to the ridiculous dogma that someone can be a good skeptic and also be religious? Just checking.

Also, what about applying skepticism to libertarianism, trickle down economics, political and economic theory, etc.? Surely this should be a useful domain for organized skeptics and individual skeptics to attack, for the betterment of everyone, instead of just feeling smug with their superiority complex over people who believe in bigfoot.

Yes, I mad at the organized skeptic community.

>thousands of logical holes
Give me 3 examples

1.) Do you have ANY proof for what you're mindlessly declaring?

2.) This shit:
>Stop trying to debate me. I don't care if anyone walks away feeling like a "winner".
Is clearly you walking away and telling me I've walked away.

I'm still here. This is a message site that allows for debate, which is what it is mostly used for.
That's why Moots name is Moot.
It means "debatable".

I'm asking for proof, and you're substituting in circular logic and calling it philosophy.
Circular logic without empirical or epistemological foundation is called sophism not philosophy.

Learn the difference you hack.
Do you have any proof for any of your claims?
Do you have empirical data or epistemological reason?

I don't think you read what I said. Believing in an objective truth would be faith. Empiricism is not faith.

I was simply arguing that bitching that the most widely accepted explanation is not "proven" is absolutely pointless without an alternative that fits better. Science isn't about objective truth. No one is claiming evolution is the objective truth. It's the best empirical explanation available, and so we discuss it more seriously than alternatives.

Also:
The one user is right that proper epistemology is foundationalism, IMHO with some mix of coherentism, to form what some people call coherentism. It is a fair description to say that the small set of basic premises that underlie reason and rationality are taken "on faith" and because they're circularly justifying.

When we walk into a situation, like the next bigfoot claim, we have a lot of background evidence that bigfoot claims are generally bogus, and the rational thing to do is to take this into account when evaluating the next bigfoot claim. That's background evidence in the context of Bayesian reasoning. Thus, starting with the perspective of debunking a claim is a totally reasonable thing to do, and further, if you don't start with the position "well, that's almost certainly wrong", then you're not actually being rational. But yes yes, I'll pay lip service to the skeptics that one should never have confidence above and beyond the currently available evidence, and one should keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

Anything else I can clear up?

>organized skeptic community.
There is no such thing, and namefagging yourself "scientist" is cringeworthy.

Do you have proof and epistemological reason to back any of your claims or no?

Asking for proof isn't dogmatic.
Asking for reason isn't dogmatic.
It's basic logic, you dolt.

And your sad attempts to shoehorn in non-existent problems in asking for proof are laughable.

>Believing in an objective truth would be faith. Empiricism is not faith.
You just contradicted yourself.
Objectivism is defined by Empiricism, you idiot.

And now you're having a misunderstand because of semantics.

One of you is using the words "objective truth" to mean "100% confidence in one's belief", whereas the other is using the words "objective truth" simply as a condemnation of post-modernism and radical epistemological relativism, plus the claim that science generally leads to the right answer, and probably the claim that science gets us closer to the rights answers over time, aka the position of Kuhn and many others.

As I said in the other thread (assuming that's you), tell me what constitutes proof.

Moot didn't know moot was a word when he chose it.

Whether a person thinks evolution is true or false is irrelevant. The concept has been shown to be useful in the sense that it has both explanatory and, more importantly, predictive power.

Evolution on geologic timescales seems to fit the data of the fossil record.

Evolution on human timescales is useful in understanding disease pathology and mitigation.

Genetic algorithms are used to great success in the solving of difficult and practical engineering problems.

The concept is both simple and powerful, which is a strong indication it may be right.

Yeah, we may not be able to watch dramatic evolution happen in our life times, which makes experimentation difficult. But the fact remains that there is a mountain of evidence that consistently combines the results from different disciplines that points toward evolution. Also we are able to see evolution happen on smaller scales with microbes, occasional new diseases being an indication of this.

This is actually leagues better than, say, the astrophysicist, who just have the stars to look at, and no laboratory in which they can manipulate their objects of interest at all. And yet still, through the merging of many disciplines, we have learned incredible things about ourselves and our universe, such as we are made up of star dust from suns that dies eons ago. Yeah, science doesn't have it 100% right, but when better evidence and theories come along, old theories are modified or rejected in favor of the new information to get closer to the truth. I wouldn't trust what cosmologist say is 100% right, but they are sure a hell of a lot closer to the truth than not.

People disputing evolution in this thread, at the very minimum you have to recognize that the theory tries to explain the great diversity of life given the evidence, and its principles have been employed to solve biologically-inspired genetic optimization problems with great success. This alone makes evolution at least plausible.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma

plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/#FOU

plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/

Backpeddler.

>tell me what constitutes proof
You've got to be kidding me.
Like we're building civilization, philosophy and science up from the ground here on a Veeky Forums thread.

If you're that ignorant, then leave.
You have no business wasting people's time.
I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm not going to spend hours of my educating you for free.

>Backpeddler.
Whatevs.

I'm the poster they're responding to. I'm feeling pretty lazy in general, so I'll just link a post I made (likely to them) in another thread. It's largely a conversation about the same thing.

Their idea of "proof" is distorted. After you've watched people ride the waves over and over again, it becomes quite clear how people work. It's also quite clear what a proper, realistic, epistemological position actually is. One that is both accurate and has high practical utility.

The waves are as follows-
"This is neat."
"We know!"
-stream of evidence that the mainstream position is lacking
"Unfounded claims, we definitely know!"
"Hm, things are a bit hazy but our present way of doing things has been well provenvand tested... Any concerns are skeptical crazy bullshit and unfounded."
"We probably don't know."
"We don't know."
"Hey this is neat!"
"We know! We know it all! We are it all!"
[...]
Repeat ad nauseum.

People are stupid. You can put all the evidence you want suggesting their established opinion is wrong, right in front of their face, and it does little. It must be damning, and other people have to get on board, for them to get on board. It's abut population pressure. Debunking tends to serve a personal bias, and in many cases, tribal group security.

It's in the way. A net negative.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument
>means that any proposition whatsoever can be endlessly (infinitely) questioned.
Unless you agree to stop at Empirical Pragmaticism and that circular logic without Empirical basis is pointless.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma
>plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/#FOU
>plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/
Same as above.

The very idea that you've never heard of Logical Pragmatism, Empirical Pragmatism and Epistemological Pragmatism is hard to believe.

Yes, you can continue to question things, but once you reach observable physical foundations, then it's just irrational sophism to "question" whether you have a reason to stick to them.
Observation is reason.
Anything else is automatically Nihilistic Solipsism... which is a route anti-objectivists and anti-empiricists take.
But that's not Science nor Reason.

>You've got to be kidding me.
And of course, you cannot. I could have wrapped this up from the start, and probably should have. You don't seem to have anything valuable to say.

Also, if you bothered to read the links you posted, they answered those concepts in full, which can be reduced to two conceptions:
Empirical Foundationalism
Epistemological Axioms.

>Unless you agree to stop at Empirical Pragmaticism and that circular logic without Empirical basis is pointless.
That's just foundationalism. Your presuppositional foundation includes the claim that "empirical reasoning 'works' ". I don't actually go for that formulation for several reasons, but it should suffice for my purposes here.

I think we're in agreement. If you agree that we're all presuppositionalists, perhaps with a dash of coherentism, then we are in agreement.

>And of course, you cannot.
Now you're using more fallacies.
Telling me I cannot is an example of:
>argument from silence
>argument from personal incredulity
>argument from ignorance
Stop using fallacies.
And read the links you posted because the propositions in the links also have been answered in those same thinks:
Empirical Foundationalism
Epistemological Axioms.

If you make claims, you must provide evidence based on:
Empirical Foundationalism
Epistemological Axioms.
End of story.

You can't just blatantly make claims becuase you just believe them you idiot.
That's not how reality works.

it'll get you an "F" in a Science class

Stop using the fallacy fallacy.
Stop dodging questions.

No serious scientist ever thinks their understanding of any subject is complete. Speaking as a physicist, every true scientist recognizes that they work with models that approximate the world, and every good scientist tries to understand the domain and limitations of those models.

To demand someone "Prove evolution" to your satisfaction, I think first people would first have to form consensus on what they mean by evolution. And hell, if everyone in this thread answered in their own words, "what is the theory of evolution?", I think you would find anything but agreement.

I think a good starting point for a real debate is asking both sides what they think about the others positions.

Clearly I'm a scientist.

To me, Creationism is the theory that (a) supernatural being(s) very deliberately created the universe and populated the Earth with what we identify as everyday life, as motivated and explained by various creation stories from many different cultures.

There are several concerns with the theory, but my primary objection is that I see Creationist theory having no predictive power, and therefore is useless as a scientific tool. This isn't an insult to Creationism, but it very much is disqualifying it as science.

>There are several concerns with the theory, but my primary objection is that I see Creationist theory having no predictive power, and therefore is useless as a scientific tool. This isn't an insult to Creationism, but it very much is disqualifying it as science.
Please see:

How not to attack Intelligent Design Creationism: Philosophical misconceptions about Methodological Naturalism

(final draft – to appear in Foundations of Science)

Maarten Boudry, Stefaan Blancke, Johan Braeckman

sites.google.com/site/maartenboudry/teksten-1/methodological-naturalism

>peope can work on debunking it
debunk yourself,
before you junk yourself

Made me laugh for some reason.

1 ) its not observeable
2 ) lots of missing links/transitional fossils
3 ) Unfalsifiabilitation

Penne rigate.

>1 ) its not observeable
Yes it is. For example: Fossils appearing in the correct order in the geologic column. Coincidence of the morphological tree of life and the DNA tree of life.

>2 ) lots of missing links/transitional fossils
Bullshit.

There are stories of actual conferences where people are fighting over whether something should be named "a mammal-like reptile" or a "reptile-like mammal". We've gone a long way.

>3 ) Unfalsifiabilitation
Also bullshit. For example, fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian. Animal species whose morphological position on the tree of life is radically different than the DNA position on the tree of life. Animal species which does not fit in the modern taxonomic classification - i.e. a mammal with feathers.

Also:
youtube.com/watch?v=_r0zpk0lPFU

> Fossils
The interpretation of the fossils you find is NOT proof, nor measurable, nor re-testable. Learn what scientific method means

> Bullshit
Show me the transitional fossil where a starfish was evolving into a fish. According to darwin, thats what happened. Like so there are ridiculous amounts of fossils that just isn't there to be found by anyone that supposedly shows the evolutionary transitions.
Even the evolution museums don't have those fossils. You just can't ignore your way out of this

> Falsifiable also bullshit
Your answer to this question should have been the observable and testable proof, not some irrelevant connotation.

>The interpretation of the fossils you find is NOT proof, nor measurable, nor re-testable. Learn what scientific method means
It's totally testable. Go outside right now, and dig in the ground. If you find a pre-Cambrian rabbit - congratulations! Really solid evidence against evolution.

>Show me the transitional fossil where a starfish was evolving into a fish.
Umm, no on both counts.

>Your answer to this question should have been the observable and testable proof, not some irrelevant connotation.

I provided several disproofs. Finding a fossilized pre-Cambrian rabbit, or some other wildly out-of-place fossil.

Find a mammal with feathers.

Well, there goes most of the scientific fields. Too bad they're all reliant on each other...

>According to darwin, thats what happened.
Nope.

>"How do you prove evolution?"
>Observing bacteria reproduction and changes involves evolution
>"But how did this dog evolve, huh?"
>breeds changes and controlled reproduction through history explains it
>"then, how did this horse evolve?checkm8"
>Fossil analysis of some species show great similarities between the horse and its ancestors
>"then how did the starfish evolve?"
>we don't know exactly how...
>"Evolution disproved!"

There's fossil evidence the camel came from what is now northern Canada.

>Show me the transitional fossil where a starfish was evolving into a fish.
Fish belong to the Chordata Phyla (Specifically Vertebrata) which is distinct from the Echinoderms. That is to say, Starfish & Fish evolved from a common ancestor, but not from each-other.
It's a very common mistake to think that evolution tends towards greater 'complexity' of life and that certain organisms are 'more evolved' than others. All organisms have adapted to a particular faices and mode of life.

ie, life is mechanical. And the only requirement for existence is that it works.

>'idiot bingo'
>'evolution is only a theory'
IT IS , evolution firs the definition of a scientific theory precisely . evolution is irrefutably without a shadow of a doubt 'only a theory' .
it is a self evident fact that cannot be argued against and yet is put in this 'idiot bingo'.

>'where are all the missing links'
again completely legitimate claim . if there's missing links in an evolutionary chain we cannot be completely certain of what went on between the two points we know in the chain or even if they're connected .

When people say "it's only a theory," they think that means it's all up in the air, that its anyone's guess. Remember, the vernacular form of "theory" is not the same as the textbook definition.

...

...

No. It's more like starting with the bible on one side, and starting with a blank slate on the other.

The rmorphological tree of life was discovered by a Christian creationist about 100 years before Darwin. These facts are readily available and objectively true. That's why science found them. Science doesn't start, or shouldn't start, with any preconceived notions - that's for religion and other faith beliefs.

...

Please come save Veeky Forums from itself

Whats with all these straw man cartoons.
Creationists have been proven wrong about 100% of everything they believe.
Almost no one believes the world 6000 years old because the proof shows it's not.
Same is true for places and beliefs in magic.
It's all nonsense.

Let's just say that a loud minority gets more attention than a silent majority. I myself am part of the majority.

>natural selection
>not random

randomness isn't something that can be proven
but for all we can know, god loves to cast those dice

Oh no, on Veeky Forums there's a guy that says that carbon dating is flaeed because the sun brings carbon to the earth continuously or something and he says that dating things by what ground layer they're in is circular because the age of the ground layers is determined by what "dinosaur bones" you find in it in the first place

Did I forget to mention that I asked /christian/ what they thought of evolution? It's still getting replies.

Surface carbon dating can be flawed, but that's why they have never used surface carbon dating, and it's also why they also use cross comparative analysis with other forms for Radiometric dating as well.
Carbon is never used alone. The other sources aren't always cited because when you're dealing with living organisms that are carbon based, it's the carbon content that scientists are most interested in.

yes it is

evolution is a change in frequency of an allele in a population

we've observed that many times

m.youtube.com/watch?v=QNlzkCO29bk

You poor fools. You let evolution make a monkey outta you.

I can prove evolution is a fact with 6 months and a fast replicating bacterial culture

But muh microevolution

ITT butthurt euphorics

Don't forget me, your normal garden variety creationist.

At least the information revolution is killing your idiots of.
>>>/x