4 ms·

We're really getting nowhere, but I'm curious to know one last thing. Since you seem to be speaking as an ambassador for the scientific community, which one of

by kirse 18y ago

We're really getting nowhere, but I'm curious to know one last thing. Since you seem to be speaking as an ambassador for the scientific community, which one of these processes would have a more solid foundation in fact and truth? 1. An empirically observable process that, by its very nature, is known to exist. 2. An unobservable process, where the very condition of existence is unknown. There's a huge difference in the science of deconstructing what is known to exist (the empirical) versus trying to construct the unknown. One is based in solid fact and the extremely powerful truth of existence, the other is just a pitiful shot in the dark and based on faith that (1) man has the intelligence and capability to put things together properly (2) it even exists.

KirinDave 18y ago
We're really getting nowhere.. You're right.
- kirse 18y ago
  Are you not going to answer my question then? Or do you genuinely not know the answer? Your position is intellectually bankrupt, your arguments presented thus far are literally over 5 years old and well-debunked, the scientific community rejects your hypothesis, and your pathological avoidance of the fundamental inconsistencies you're proposing in being an anti-evolutionist are plain as day to anyone without a religious axe to grind. If you're going to be summarily and swiftly dismissive under the premises that I'm just another "anti-evolutionist" religious type, then proceed to insult me and try to question the validity of my argument by saying I'm someone with an "axe to grind", then you will at least acknowledge that the very science we are debating certainly deserves its massive dose of skepticism from even science itself, not just religious individuals.
  - logjam 18y ago
    I dismiss your "arguments" even more swiftly (you're not making any, you are merely making tired, unsupported assertions). The answers to your "questions" can all be found here, which 30 seconds of googling would have found for you: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ You're welcome.
    - kirse 18y ago
      Thanks for the link, it's all so obvious now! How can you ever go wrong when you're the one who gets to define both the end result and then fill in the means of getting there? Of course the evidence will always point to the end result, because you're the one who made up the damn end result in the first place! Evidence can always be twisted and shaped to fit your view when you're the one who gets to define what the picture looks like. This isn't about whether the evidence points to the picture, it's about whether or not we even have the right picture in mind. It's pretty clear that since the end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in action, it is a contrivance of man of which it's existence is still unknown.
      - KirinDave 18y ago
        The end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in action. Neither can God. I do feel bad for you, kirse. 10 years ago I went through the same dilemma, debate and denial. If you want to be rational, you have to learn the evidence. If you learn the evidence and you apply rational, even-handed criterion to the subject, the conclusion that evolution exists and at least partly explains our modern world is undeniably apparent. You literally have no rational leg to stand on. Your argument that the conclusion was made up and the data forced to fit it is so obviously false that it's almost laughable (few theories are as rigorously opposed as evolution has been, if there were any significant holes the scientific community would tear it apart). This isn't about whether the evidence points to the end result, it's about whether or not we even have the right end result in mind. This is exactly 180 degrees from reality. If the evidence points to a specific conclusion and that evidence can be replicated by diverse, neutral, competent observers the conclusion is true regardless of if we like it or not. Science isn't about picking a result then gathering data to support it, although if you hang out with the ID crowd I can see why you might get that impression. If you want an example we can look again to heliocentricity. It was not a popular viewpoint, but the data forced people to accept that position, despite the fact that it went against all the contemporary common sense and religious belief (and despite the fact that it's difficult to observe contrary evidence without a lot of bookkeeping and some optics). P.S. I didn't answer your question earlier because I've already answered a very similar question in debates dozens of times. Your crowd really needs a revised playbook, because you can basically google ever question as presented and get a powerful rebuttal to your every potential argument.

by kirse 18y ago

KirinDave 18y ago

We're really getting nowhere.. You're right.

kirse 18y ago
Are you not going to answer my question then? Or do you genuinely not know the answer? Your position is intellectually bankrupt, your arguments presented thus far are literally over 5 years old and well-debunked, the scientific community rejects your hypothesis, and your pathological avoidance of the fundamental inconsistencies you're proposing in being an anti-evolutionist are plain as day to anyone without a religious axe to grind. If you're going to be summarily and swiftly dismissive under the premises that I'm just another "anti-evolutionist" religious type, then proceed to insult me and try to question the validity of my argument by saying I'm someone with an "axe to grind", then you will at least acknowledge that the very science we are debating certainly deserves its massive dose of skepticism from even science itself, not just religious individuals.
- logjam 18y ago
  I dismiss your "arguments" even more swiftly (you're not making any, you are merely making tired, unsupported assertions). The answers to your "questions" can all be found here, which 30 seconds of googling would have found for you: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ You're welcome.
  - kirse 18y ago
    Thanks for the link, it's all so obvious now! How can you ever go wrong when you're the one who gets to define both the end result and then fill in the means of getting there? Of course the evidence will always point to the end result, because you're the one who made up the damn end result in the first place! Evidence can always be twisted and shaped to fit your view when you're the one who gets to define what the picture looks like. This isn't about whether the evidence points to the picture, it's about whether or not we even have the right picture in mind. It's pretty clear that since the end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in action, it is a contrivance of man of which it's existence is still unknown.
    - KirinDave 18y ago
      The end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in action. Neither can God. I do feel bad for you, kirse. 10 years ago I went through the same dilemma, debate and denial. If you want to be rational, you have to learn the evidence. If you learn the evidence and you apply rational, even-handed criterion to the subject, the conclusion that evolution exists and at least partly explains our modern world is undeniably apparent. You literally have no rational leg to stand on. Your argument that the conclusion was made up and the data forced to fit it is so obviously false that it's almost laughable (few theories are as rigorously opposed as evolution has been, if there were any significant holes the scientific community would tear it apart). This isn't about whether the evidence points to the end result, it's about whether or not we even have the right end result in mind. This is exactly 180 degrees from reality. If the evidence points to a specific conclusion and that evidence can be replicated by diverse, neutral, competent observers the conclusion is true regardless of if we like it or not. Science isn't about picking a result then gathering data to support it, although if you hang out with the ID crowd I can see why you might get that impression. If you want an example we can look again to heliocentricity. It was not a popular viewpoint, but the data forced people to accept that position, despite the fact that it went against all the contemporary common sense and religious belief (and despite the fact that it's difficult to observe contrary evidence without a lot of bookkeeping and some optics). P.S. I didn't answer your question earlier because I've already answered a very similar question in debates dozens of times. Your crowd really needs a revised playbook, because you can basically google ever question as presented and get a powerful rebuttal to your every potential argument.