Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Do you have a workable hypothesis?

As I am not an acceded scientist, no.

Science works that way. Until you come up with the evidence then you are running head long into science.

Are you sure? Does accreditation not matter to the presentation of evidence in "science"?

 

[RandFan]

I have read and re-read Talk Origins many times. It does not present the ability of TOE to be falsified.

?

Are you sincere or are you just playing a game? Are you sticking your fingers in your ears and humming? Can we go through some of them or do already know that they don't exist?

 

[RandFan]

As I am not an acceded scientist, no.

• Then what is the point?
• As an aside, Marconi wasn't a scientist and he proved other scientists wrong.

Are you sure?

Yes, of course, at least as sure as I am of any thing else.

Does accreditation not matter to the presentation of evidence in "science"?

I'm sorry but I've not a clue what this means or what this has to do with the discussion at hand.

 

[RandFan]

Jerome is not into "full disclosure"... but I suspect you've uncovered his leanings. I've had him on ignore for some time.

If he continues at playing the game of pretending not to see then I'm going to put him on ignore also. It is only funny in the right context.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Yes. Of course. There are many ways to falsify evolution BTW. That IS, to a large degree, the job of evolutionary biologists.

I only checked the last link you posted.

A sharp distinction is made between the theory that species evolved from common ancestors along specified lines of descent (here called ldquothe theory of common descentrdquo), and the theories intended as causal explanations of evolution

They were looking at WHICH process of TOE occurred, not a disqualification of TOE.


See, this is the common game. The presentation of arguments over HOW TOE occurred as evidence that science is attempting to...

It does work on most.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I'm sorry but I've not a clue what this means or what this has to do with the discussion at hand.

You are either not as bright as I assumed; if so I apologize for my presumption, or you are the one playing a game.

 

[RandFan]

Yet, that is not the game I am playing. I can honestly state that I am uncertain as to the proper answer the question. I have no dog in the fight. I am only attempting to extract logical arguments from the various sides.

?

Scientists make specific predictions like they will find shared DNA between primates and humans that they will not find between fish and humans and they then find that evidence and to you that fact is neutral?

I'm sorry but I find that a bit hard to swallow. That is like saying that if my child is related to me she will have very similar DNA and when that is verified you shrug your shoulders and say it doesn't prove anything.

 

[RandFan]

They were looking at WHICH process of TOE occurred, not a disqualification of TOE.

?

From the link:

The theory of common descent permits a large number of predictions of new results that would be improbable without evolution. For instance, (a) phylogenetic trees have been validated now; (b) the observed order in fossils of new species discovered since Darwin's time could be predicted from the theory of common descent; (c) owing to the theory of common descent, the degrees of similarity and difference in newly discovered properties of more or less related species could be predicted. Such observations can be regarded as attempts to falsify the theory of common descent. We conclude that the theory of common descent is an easily-falsifiable & often-tested & still-not-falsified theory, which is the strongest predicate a theory in an empirical science can obtain.

 

[RandFan]

You are either not as bright as I assumed; if so I apologize for my presumption, or you are the one playing a game.

I have thick skin. What was the point you were trying to make?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Scientists make specific predictions like they will find shared DNA between primates and humans that they will not find between fish and humans and they then find that evidence and to you that fact is neutral?

Shared DNA from an original ancestor would be evidenced by the same evidences you are presenting as evidence of TOE.

The same evidence could evidence both broad theories.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I have thick skin. What was the point you were trying to make?

Good news. My words were not an attempt at malice. Please do not succumb to the entreats from the gallery.

 

[RandFan]

Shared DNA from an original ancestor would be evidenced by the same evidences you are presenting as evidence of TOE.

The same evidence could evidence both broad theories.

Let me make certain that we are clear here.

• Are you saying that it is evidence post-hoc or that one could make a prediction based on the theory of god?
• Did anyone make such a prediction?
• What about junk DNA and transcription errors?
• Did god do that to fool people?

Hypothesis: God used DNA to make all animals and he inserted junk DNA and transcription errors into DNA. He only put shared junk DNA and transcription errors into DNA to confuse people.

• We will find shared transcription errors.
• These transcription errors will only be shared by related species.

Do you really buy this?

 

[RandFan]

My words were not an attempt at malice.

Thank you.

What was the point that you were trying to make?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

[*]Are you saying that it is evidence post-hoc or that one could make a prediction based on the theory of god?

Sure, the evidence does not preclude some original mover.

[*]Did anyone make such a prediction?

Not relevant and you know it.

[*]What about junk DNA and transcription errors?

I am not arguing that a "GOD" has manipulated existence on Earth since the inception.

[*]Did god do that to fool people?

This question is presuming my thoughts and is thus invalid.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

What was the point that you were trying to make?

That your argument was based upon an enumerable and anonymous list of acceded experts.

 

[RandFan]

Sure, the evidence does not preclude some original mover.

Not relevant and you know it.

I am not arguing that a "GOD" has manipulated existence on Earth since the inception.

This question is presuming my thoughts and is thus invalid.

• You didn't answer the question. It's an important question.
• Yes, it is relevant. Why can evolutionary scientists make predictions and creations scientists can't.
• No one said otherwise. Did he manipulate it to have junk DNA and transcription errors, before, after, anytime?
• No, it presumes A.) that there is junk DNA and Transcription errors in DNA. B.) That these are common to close relatives. C.) The only conclusion I know of is that god is trying to confuse us or evolution is correct, do you have any other explanation?

 

[DOC]

I believe, based upon all available evidence, that all plant and animal species visible to the naked eye and visible only by microscopic analysis that exist today and had existed over the past ~3 billion years come from the same common anscetor, a single celled organism.

And to clarify, you are talking about one individual organism (that for example can be given a name like Fred or Judy or LUCA, and not a group of similar one celled organisms)

To clarify, Do you believe you must drink human-god blood to be purified?

No

 

[RandFan]

That your argument was based upon an enumerable and anonymous list of acceded experts.

Therefore... ?

 

[DOC]

Aha! We need to clear up a possible misconception. Do you see, DOC, that there are but two choices here: either evolution or god?

false dichotomy

In other words, is it your view that if one believes evolution is true that person must reject your god?

Never said this.

 

[billydkid]

Oh my God, that must mean that Jesus was the son of God and he died for our sins!