You know, you kind of remind me of Sarah Palin during the last election cycle. No matter what people would say to her, she'd eventually keep running back to the same old dumb talking points like "but I can see Russia from my house!" You too seem to have an answer to every counterargument you stumble upon: "it isn't logically valid".

you are saying things are valid when they're not, i don't know how else to counter that. you're like a kid complaining that the teacher always writes 'failed' on his test card

if it's not logically valid than it's inferential and getting into the area of belief. the arguments for the evolution look really bad and i don't see how you don't see this! it's intuitive but the reasoning is garbage. here's the outline from earlier:

all species evolved from a common ancestor <because>
there are similarities and differences between animals <and> similarities and differences are genetically inherited.

any animal that has existed supports the theory, do you not see a problem with this? similarities are markers of evolutionary commonality, differences markers of... evolutionary differences. if a creature has an organ similar to a theoretically unrelated organism, it's an example of convergent evolution. if older fossils are more complex than younger ones, this gives support to successive modification. if it's simpler, the complexity was no longer needed and this is supported by vestigial organs. on and on, any animal, or fossil, or peice of a fossil.

i'm not sure what you consider complete but i'm pretty sure the fossil record of human descent doesn't even come close.

"Usually"? Do you mean to say that scientists sometimes do have perfectly valid explanations for fossil records? Because, you know, they do!

this isn't what i meant at all, scientists always have explanations for fossil records ( you're using 'valid' again). i was refering to examples like why asians are better at maths, when a counter example would be cultural influence. i was saying, most explanations based on evolution don't have a counter example

when it's so lacking scientifically it's only redeeming quality would be how useful it was, and i don't see how useful it is at all.

climbtree, this isn't directed at you, so don't treat it like it's part of your debate.

What annoys me the most about the argument between evolution and creationism is that there are only these two sides.  Creationists think that if they can disprove evolution, that makes them right.  It doesn't.  Not by a long shot.  Even if evolution were false, which it isn't, it doesn't mean that god exists and created everything.  It doesn't mean there's any kind of higher power.  It just means life came to be through a process we haven't figured out yet.

The thing is, I don't ever see anyone who opposes evolution who ISN'T a creationist.  They always firmly believe in the bible, which is just one of many ancient documents that are filled with mythological nonsense. 

This is a really annoying false dichotomy.  The scientists who study biological processes don't set out to disprove the bible, but the creationists set out to disprove evolution by poking the wrong holes in the theory.  It's rare that you'll see a bible thumper try to come to his own conclusion that isn't based on mythological bullshit. 

Scientists use observations and data to find answers.  Creationists have their "answer" in the bible, and set out to prove their hypothesis right by ignoring any evidence that doesn't support their pre-made conclusion.

seriously though he doesn't understand that science has to be falsifiable though. I zoned this topic out until I just accidentally clicked it but the dude doesn't know falsifiabilty. the core tenet of every scientific theory.

science doesnt have to be "falsifiable". some things cant be falsifiable because there are not the technological means to do so. what has been called science through history worked by paradigms and to say science is this and that strikes me as idealist in my opinion

ok DUDE CLIMBTREE i dont care about any of this i have but one question!!

how can you harp on evolution for being, in your mind, unproven, when like 3 posts later you state that WELLLL THE BIBLES TRUE WE JUST HAVENT PROVED IT YET

seriously man i don't care i just want you to map out how this isn't a massive contradiction

it's not a contradiction because that's my belief, in fact i'm pretty sure i said 'logically support for evolution is just as bad as for creationism.' my only problem with 'belief' in the theory is it's not that useful imo but i did say it was intuitive and made sense.

why do you need absolute proof for evolution yet you accept christianity based on  no proof at all, just the word of some book

What part of "core tenet of every scientific theory" did you not get.

i study physics,astronomy and mathematics in the university, i work in an observatory doing "science", and ive read a bunch of philosophy of science. so i dont need people who are enfatulated with "scientism" to patronize me on it.

it does not matter what scientists claim about their trade beyond their ability to do that trade. popper was wrong and scientists playing philosophy were wrong to claim that science is falsifiable because that is to ignore what has passed as "science" throughout history. Science does not work as you see it in textbooks - you know the man in a lab coat performing experimients and making assumptions only on experimental observations. Science is formed by a community of men who had their own interests and prejudices and they are not infallible to the social order they are members of.

Wrong. If the means to create and confirm the theory existed in the first place, so do the means to disprove it. You don't need to use a time machine to disprove the big bang, you know.

people accept the theory of the big bang because it makes sense in the sense that it correlates with the current astrophysics paradigm. From the detection of microwave background radiation to the elongated redshifts of the expanding universe, the assumption of a "big bang" was basically trying to fit this evvidence with our current physical worldview. Thats not falsifiability because it assumes that "the laws of physics" as we know them are correct. However the only way to disprove the big bang is making reference to its consistency or inconsistency to the current Paradigm (i.e. if it makes sense with the current laws of physics). However we can never be sure our paradigm is fundamentally correct, and in my opinion, it shows some deep flaws. For example, when scientists could not explain the rotational speed of galaxies, they made reference to a dark matter which they never detected but the "speed" could only make sense that way if we used General Relativity/Newtonian gravitation. Same with the accelerated expansion of the universe - they had to patch up  by making reference to a dark energy. 

climbtree is trollin guys

If he trolls, does that count as a reason to go to hell?

If so, I suggest you stop, Climbtree.

why do you need absolute proof for evolution yet you accept christianity based on  no proof at all, just the word of some book

why do you need absolute proof of christianity yet you accept evolution based on no proof at all, just the word of some book?

i was criticising the science behind evolution, not the belief in it. 'proof' for evolution shares the logical form as 'proof' for creationism, and very few people would even try and argue faith in god as scientific.

in terms of outcomes though, hold your breath for pascals wager but what are the implications of believing in god vs the implications of believing in evolution. something like the theory of gravity is really useful for physics, but i don't see why there's even a need for evolutionary theory in the best of cases and in the worst of cases it's used to explain and reinforce the status quo.

i think if anything the modernist movement got trolled by fundamentalists into adopting this with such fervor.

Climbtree, I don't know if you're trolling or not. I hope you are, but if you aren't then holy fuck, ahahahha.

why do you need absolute proof of christianity yet you accept evolution based on no proof at all, just the word of some book?

i was criticising the science behind evolution, not the belief in it. 'proof' for evolution shares the logical form as 'proof' for creationism, and very few people would even try and argue faith in god as scientific.

in terms of outcomes though, hold your breath for pascals wager but what are the implications of believing in god vs the implications of believing in evolution. something like the theory of gravity is really useful for physics, but i don't see why there's even a need for evolutionary theory in the best of cases and in the worst of cases it's used to explain and reinforce the status quo.

i think if anything the modernist movement got trolled by fundamentalists into adopting this with such fervor.

okay you're def. trolling

I thought Jester(probably someone else, i just wanted to say jester because it sounds better) was kidding two years ago when he called you "GW's official fundie"

I hate to get into this debate in the first place but before anyone mentions pascal's wager and the usefulness of believing in evolution again, evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive at all.