3 ms·

Your conception of science is twisted and narrow, your bomb example is a classic modus moron, and you would rather make a grand display of your ignorance than t

by arakyd 17y ago

Your conception of science is twisted and narrow, your bomb example is a classic modus moron, and you would rather make a grand display of your ignorance than take a few minutes to Google up the sort of evidence for evolution that you claim doesn't exist. Let us hope that you are troll sir, for otherwise we must conclude that you are an idiot.

kirse 17y ago
Tell me then, where are the observations that form the scientific argument for Macro Evolution? Here, let me link you to Science 101 so I can help your tiny brain understand this: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_07 http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_07 See that little formula? Idea + Expectations + Observations = Scientific Argument 1. We have the scientific idea - Macro evolution over 4+ bn years 2. We have the expectations (aka what you call circumstantial "evidence") - fossil record and a whole mountain of other expectations. 3. So where exactly are the observations that confirm this idea produces our expectations? Nowhere. You can't observe Macro evolution in action. All that exists is a mountain of circumstantial expectations with no observations. Two-thirds of a scientific argument doesn't equal a scientific argument, moron. It certainly must seem like trolling when you don't even understand the process by which scientific arguments are validated.
- arakyd 17y ago
  I love how you classify the fossil record as "expectations." New species appear in the historical record, complete with transitional forms. What's your explanation? Repeated acts of special creation? Look, the reason I didn't link any more observations of "macro" evolution is because examples have already been linked (and you've ignored them), and because you seem to think that you have logical grounds for dismissing all evidence while clearly demonstrating that you do not understand either basic logic or the scientific method. Seriously, google "modus moron" and fix your shit if you don't want to come across like an ignorant creationist troll. I suspect that your real complaint isn't based on anything that is clearly evident from what you have posted so far and that pointing you at stuff you could easily find for yourself if you were genuinely curious is a waste of time. But in case I'm wrong: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
  - kirse 17y ago
    logical grounds for dismissing all evidence I don't know why Evolutionist trolls continue to insist that ID advocates "toss out all the evidence". You are aware that the same "evidence" such as the vast fossil record, and insane complexity of the universe is what forms the basis for the ID argument, right? Even Dawkins himself admits that all intuition indicates that the universe has been designed. I'm not tossing out any evidence, I'm re-interpreting it under my own world-view, in the same fashion that you have your own self validating world-view where you interpret the "evidence". Regardless, explain to me how forensic science and circumstantial evidence works if my "shit" above regarding the bomb example is not sound. It's not a truth table that I've written above, it's an assertion that we can guess with high probability what event happened if 1) we have seen the event in the past or can replicate it and 2) we understand the effects and resulting evidence for that event.

by arakyd 17y ago

kirse 17y ago

Tell me then, where are the observations that form the scientific argument for Macro Evolution? Here, let me link you to Science 101 so I can help your tiny brain understand this: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_07 http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_07 See that little formula? Idea + Expectations + Observations = Scientific Argument 1. We have the scientific idea - Macro evolution over 4+ bn years 2. We have the expectations (aka what you call circumstantial "evidence") - fossil record and a whole mountain of other expectations. 3. So where exactly are the observations that confirm this idea produces our expectations? Nowhere. You can't observe Macro evolution in action. All that exists is a mountain of circumstantial expectations with no observations. Two-thirds of a scientific argument doesn't equal a scientific argument, moron. It certainly must seem like trolling when you don't even understand the process by which scientific arguments are validated.

arakyd 17y ago
I love how you classify the fossil record as "expectations." New species appear in the historical record, complete with transitional forms. What's your explanation? Repeated acts of special creation? Look, the reason I didn't link any more observations of "macro" evolution is because examples have already been linked (and you've ignored them), and because you seem to think that you have logical grounds for dismissing all evidence while clearly demonstrating that you do not understand either basic logic or the scientific method. Seriously, google "modus moron" and fix your shit if you don't want to come across like an ignorant creationist troll. I suspect that your real complaint isn't based on anything that is clearly evident from what you have posted so far and that pointing you at stuff you could easily find for yourself if you were genuinely curious is a waste of time. But in case I'm wrong: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
- kirse 17y ago
  logical grounds for dismissing all evidence I don't know why Evolutionist trolls continue to insist that ID advocates "toss out all the evidence". You are aware that the same "evidence" such as the vast fossil record, and insane complexity of the universe is what forms the basis for the ID argument, right? Even Dawkins himself admits that all intuition indicates that the universe has been designed. I'm not tossing out any evidence, I'm re-interpreting it under my own world-view, in the same fashion that you have your own self validating world-view where you interpret the "evidence". Regardless, explain to me how forensic science and circumstantial evidence works if my "shit" above regarding the bomb example is not sound. It's not a truth table that I've written above, it's an assertion that we can guess with high probability what event happened if 1) we have seen the event in the past or can replicate it and 2) we understand the effects and resulting evidence for that event.