• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Is evolution a fact?

arg-fallbackName="Mr_Wilford"/>
Lol

There are no presuppositions, all statements made in evolution are tentative inferences based on the available data and are subject to revision or abandonment in light of new daya.

Scientists are not creationists. They don't start with a conclusion in mind, they gather data and make inferences based on said data. Ergo, their only presupposition is that the universe is inherently understandable.

Bernhard, drop the "you're indoctirnated" bullshit. Seriously, it's getting old. I get it, you can't comprehend that some people don't start with a conclusion in mind. You might have done so, but that's on you, don't project onto us as doing the samr.

Remember, I thought evolution was bullshit until I asked someone honest questions, and got satisfactory answers. I never started with a conclusion, and I doubt anyone else here did either. Bring decent data, like a legitimate piece of irreducible complexity, and I'll happily examine it and weigh it against the data I already have.

However, you seem to have backed yourself into such a corner that, seeing no one is taking your bullshit assertions as fact, all you have left is childish accusations of brainwashing.

It's pretty clear your defense mechanism of demonizing your opponent is kicking in, just like you said. How funny.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
So that's a 'no' on supporting your assertions then?

Understood.

Starting to look like suicide by mod, this one.
 
arg-fallbackName="SpecialFrog"/>
Bernhard.visscher said:
Now time for definitional semantics.

Just provide the presuppositions of evolution.

Simple question..
Click to expand...
I've done so but they don't fit your presuppositions as to what they should be. So either I'm wrong and you should correct me, you are using the word to mean something different then I am or you have no clue what you are talking about.
 
arg-fallbackName="SpecialFrog"/>
Bernhard.visscher said:
No you have not.. You think science presuppositions equal evolution presuppositions. Which is not true. So you brought a science presupposition sure... But not an evolutionary presupposition.


News flash I agree with science.

Not evolution.

So bring evolution presupposition.
Click to expand...
News flash: you don't know what science is and have apparently been listening to Ken Ham.

If you are so convinced evolution requires presuppositions why can you not name one?
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
OK, tell us what are the presuppositions of science, just so we can see that you know what you're talking about, and then we'll discuss the presuppositions of evolution.

I have a hypothesis about this, namely that Bernhard here knows as much about scientific epistemology as he knows about everything else, namely exactly fuck all.

Confirming prediction: Bernhard will either deflect the question or come up with some other reason why he can't answer it, or he'll give an answer that is incorrect.

Null hypothesis prediction: Bernhard will give a correct answer and my hypothesis will be falsified.

I'd give odds, but nobody's going to take the null bet, because that would be asinine, given this poster's history.

I'm going to make a stronger statement than Aron; not only is it not possible to defend creationism honestly, you actually have to be a congenital liar to make the attempt.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
Done with this troll. I'll leave you lot to toy with the pickings.
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
Bernhard.visscher said:
News flash I agree with science.

Not evolution.
Click to expand...

oxyband.jpg
 
arg-fallbackName="Mr_Wilford"/>
Yeah, he's trolling at this point.

To lurkers, scienctific theories like evolution, atomic theory, and germ theory are inferences made after data is gathered. No one presupposes the truth of a hypothesis when collecting data. That's dishonest, and creationist.

The point: Evolutionary Theory has no presuppositions, no more than Atomic Theory or Germ Theory

Bernhard is a denialist plain and simple, and that's a demonstrable fact. Remember kids, it doesn't matter we've seen telomeres fuse under microscopes, telomeres never fuse and the scientists claiming to see it are LYING!
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
Bernhard.visscher said:
I'm simply asking for evolutions presuppositions...
Click to expand...

No, you're asserting that they exist and hand-waving away your discoursive responsibilities in providing them.

I know a fair bit about the epistemology of science, and I'm not aware of any presuppositions unique to evolutionary theory that aren't inherent in science, and there are only three of the latter, which I'm betting you're too ignorant to know and too stupid to work out. It's up to you to support your contentions. Mine are supported by your entire posting history here, troll.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
Bernhard.visscher said:
The very fact it's evolutionary theory... Implies a presupposition.
Click to expand...

Show your working out. Name the presuppositions.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
I'd be surprised if this poster's made it that far. Frankly, I'm not sure he'd pass a Turing test.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
They'd get on famously. The blind leading the fuckwit (I'll let you decide which is which).
 
arg-fallbackName="Rando"/>
Okay Bernie, one "assumption" of evolution is that all organisms on this planet share a genetic history, the idea that all animals, plants and single celled creatures are all genetically connected. If however the creation orchard model is correct animals, plants and single celled organisms were created separate and distinct, a "kind" barrier if you will. One practical test of whether the creation assumption or evolution assumption is accurate would be to give a human genetic disorder to an animal, of a different kind. If the evolution assumption is correct the animal will synthase a treatment or at least develop the same disorder. If however the creation assumption is correct it would do nothing.

So Bernie, do you know how we got Insulin? http://www.med.uni-giessen.de/itr/history/inshist.html

Long story short in the 1920s, we removed the pancreatic gland from dogs, they in tern developed what humans called Diabetes, based upon studies of how dogs reacted we developed Insulin. Insulin was extracted from cattle and used to treat human Diabetes. Ultimately, we injected the genetic formula for human Insulin into yeast bacteria to turn them into factories that produce human Insulin. So, Bernie are humans, dogs, cattle and yeast bacteria the same kind? Or is the evolution assumption the correct one here. If it wasn't for our genetic connection Insulin would never exist. We would never be able to test a Diabetes treatment on dogs, or created human Insulin from yeast bacteria. Also if your interested the creator of Insulin at the time, Fredrick Banting, was a divinity student, so no Bernie, this was not an evolutionist who set out to prove evolution.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
Bernhard.visscher said:
just asking for an evolution presupposition. If you claim no presuppositions please include coherent argument.
Click to expand...

I'll include your hairy sphincter, and fuck all else. You warrant no further discussion until you fulfill your discoursive responsibilities. If you won't do that, simply fuck off and find somebody as stupid as you to dick around with. I'll have no more to do with you.

Have a nice life. Or not. Frankly, I couldn't give a flying fuck.
 
arg-fallbackName="SpecialFrog"/>
Bernhard.visscher said:
The very fact it's evolutionary theory... Implies a presupposition.

Yes I am trolling for an evolution presupposition.
Click to expand...
So you don't want to tell me what you think "presupposition" means. Do you want to tell me what you think "theory" means in this context?

I'm going to go out on a limb here: are you considering facts that have been established through the practice of science to be "presuppositions"? For example, if I take it as already established that gravity exists and works as described and then build on that rather than having to re-establish the evidence for gravity as part of my new theory, do you consider that a presupposition?

If so, what you should really be asking is, "on what other scientific laws or theories does evolution depend"?
 
arg-fallbackName="SpecialFrog"/>
Rando said:
Okay Bernie, one "assumption" of evolution is that all organisms on this planet share a genetic history, the idea that all animals, plants and single celled creatures are all genetically connected.
Click to expand...
Isn't that really a conclusion arising from evolution? Darwin formulated his theory without any knowledge of genetics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top