Welcome to City-Data.com forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with 700,000 other registered members. User profiles and some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your free account you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 15,000 posts/day about local topics and you will see fewer ads.
I just received a private message asking ""What kind of evidence are you looking for?"
I'll explain what I mean. I am an investigator by trade. I conduct reviews on behalf of clients where fraud, corruption, maladministration, malfeasance etc has been reported within their organisation. I have a good idea of the level of evidence that is required to support a finding. Obviously the level of evidence required differs depending on the end recipient of the finding. For example, if the matter is likely to be subject to criminal prosecution then the level of evidence required is "beyond any reasonable doubt" whereas if it is an internal disciplinary matter the level of evidence required is "likely given the balance of probabilities".
What I am looking for is simply one piece of evidence of macro-evolution that stands up to any line of refutable argument. I am looking for the “beyond any reasonable doubt” level of evidence supported by facts (not simply an interpretation of facts). I am not going to prejudge whether or not that evidence exists, but I will say I am yet to see it.
Read this first so that you can understand what constitutes proof in the world of science. We are still off topic here, and I suggest you begin a new thread with your question.
Thanks Sanspeur for that extract. Frankly, I don't care whether by vague inference macro-evolution somehow falls within the grey definition of "scientific proof". I only care whether macro-evolution has actually occured. In other words I want to know whether it is true or otherwise. If you had produced the one piece of real evidence that I requested then we wouldn't still be discussing this, and I would be thanking you for being the one that brought me out of the darkness.
Sanspeur, by the way, I noticed the article from which your extract was taken was called 29+ evidences for macroevolution. Why not pick just one of those as your example?
I place my hand over my heart and give a solemn promise that I will give honest appraisal to any piece of real evidence you may choose to bring. I will try my best to keep an open mind.
I agree that atheism is not synonymous with evolutionary theory. The two are neither mutually inclusive or exclusive.
However, the OP was clearly hinting at ID or a creator in his discourse, therefore I feel this line is consistent with the thread topic. After all isn't the search for truth all thats important.
Why do I suspect that this is just a variation of the ole "yeah, pull my finger" routine?
Sanspeur, by the way, I noticed the article from which your extract was taken was called 29+ evidences for macroevolution. Why not pick just one of those as your example?
It seems important that you first understand the scientific concept of evidence. Otherwise the debate could go around in circles for ages, each evidence being answered by "that's not a proof!". I've seen that often enough...
But yeah, if you want, the whole article is here. It's very good, but also quite complex.
If you're more into videos, cdk007, a biologist (other forum users may recognize him from his excellent abiogenesis explanation), made a series of videos about this on Youtube. It's also a bit technical but still understandable to anyone with a high-school-level understanding of genetics. Here's one I like:
Thanks Sanspeur for that extract. Frankly, I don't care whether by vague inference macro-evolution somehow falls within the grey definition of "scientific proof". I only care whether macro-evolution has actually occured. In other words I want to know whether it is true or otherwise. If you had produced the one piece of real evidence that I requested then we wouldn't still be discussing this, and I would be thanking you for being the one that brought me out of the darkness.
So frustrating....you ask for evidence, Sanspeur give you a whole boatload, and you counter by saying "oh, that not the evidence I wanted".
Well, we don't always get our choice of evidence....sometimes you have to look at what is in front of you.
Here is the thing Moetman: There is no such thing as "Truth" or "Proof" in science. Instead, there is either evidence for or evidence against a certain hypothesis/theory.
For Sanspeur to give you only one example of evolution would not do justice to the Theory of Evolution as it stands now. You have to weigh the credibility and accuracy of all of evidence (for and against) in order to see why the evolution is the dominant theory to describe the diversity of life on earth as we know it . One piece of evidence by itself doesn't really tell a convincing story.
But when you put together ALL of the data, the genetics, the fossil record, the radiometric data, the taxonomic classifcation...the Theory of Evolution has become the BEST explanation for that data.
Can you come up with an alternate, equally feasible theory that takes into account all of that evidence but also contradicts the Theory of Evolution? Believe me that many have tried but no one have been successful.
OK now, lets hold all of that evidence for intelligent design/creationism up to the light for scurtiny....
....
....
Thats right, there IS no evidence. That's nothing against you religious folks, but lets face facts...the evidence simply isn't there to suggest that the bible version of creationism is a feasible description of how the diversity of life got here.
Status:
"Feminists. How many old maids have you made?"
(set 6 days ago)
Join Date: Feb 2009
1,057 posts, read 294,641 times
Reputation: 538
Unless you've managed to solve the issues that have repeatedly caused us humans to demand
a god throughout our entire recorded history I'd like to suggest a more appropriate reaction to your enlightenment other than smug superiority. How about sorrow?
Welcome to City-Data.com forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with 700,000 other registered members. User profiles and some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your free account you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 15,000 posts/day about local topics and you will see fewer ads. 
Linear Mode
