Recently I've thought a lot about flaws in the claim that biological evolution is the result of biological science.
That is that since evolution is wrong mostly then it couldn't possibly be a product of a high standard of investigation called science.

One of the flaws missed by creationists and everyone is how Darwin and his followers don't actually make conclusions from biological research but from lines of reasoning.
Darwin constantly used the example of micro evolution evidence, real or not, to then say that macro evolution was reasonable and likely.
In fact in a famous quote he said a critic just needed to demonstrate how macro evolution could not be true by the idea of small steps.
Always evolutionists try try to persuade the public or critics that macro evolution is proved by the reality of micro evolution.
Change in one creature, like a whale from a land creature, is the evidence for all creatures having changed.
They always invoke lines of reasoning to show why its reasonable or likely that all biology has evolved but they don't actually do science.
Darwin started this but I see it all the time.
Evolutionism has not been very much a conclusion from biological research.
its been a hunch and lines of reasoning at the begining and when presented to the public and generally.
i think I'm very right here.

And your God "theory" is supposed to be less vulnerable to this kind of argument?

Cue Blue Butterfly surgical strike in 10... 9... 8... 7...

Robert Byers wrote:i think I'm very right here.

I do not know where you are, but it must be pretty high

A hunch based on observation and a line of reasoning = a hypothesis

Lots of investigation, mountains of evidence, peer reviewed consistency building despite the best efforts of many decades of opposition by those whose beliefs are threatened.

End result = a well established theory, with no real competition except goddidit cos my book says so, supported by no real line of reasoning, just a baseless hunch surviving from pre-scientific days of widespread illiteracy and tribal mythology.

Robert Byers wrote:That is that since evolution is wrong mostly...

Hi Robert. You mention that evolution is 'wrong mostly' - in what ways is evolution right?

Paul Almond wrote:And your God "theory" is supposed to be less vulnerable to this kind of argument?

+1

Creationists telling biologists they are ideologically driven? Seriously... WTF?

How can anybody be so deluded? Even when I believed in supernatural BS I would never have stooped to this level of intellectual dishonesty. Are some people just beyond help?

Well, it is a hunch and a line of reasoning, but it isn't just that.

Robert Byers wrote:Recently I've thought a lot ...

You'll forgive my doubts about this. It's just that I've read your ridiculous posts before ...

Robert Byers wrote:... about flaws in the claim that biological evolution is the result of biological science.
That is that since evolution is wrong mostly then it couldn't possibly be a product of a high standard of investigation called science.

Evolution is mostly wrong? So some of it is right? Care to elucidate?

Robert Byers wrote:One of the flaws missed by creationists and everyone is how Darwin and his followers don't actually make conclusions from biological research but from lines of reasoning.
Darwin constantly used the example of micro evolution evidence, real or not, to then say that macro evolution was reasonable and likely.

Micro-evolution, macro-evolution. You just don't get it, do you? There's evolution. That's it. Small amounts of it is what you call micro-evolution, and large bits of it, macro. Macro is made up of lots of micro. It's a fucking process, a gradual, slow, changes & adaptations over time, process. It's not a fucking event, it's a process. It's a continuum of live, changing in response to events & conditions. FFS, it's not a difficult concept to understand, assuming you actually want to understand, rather than set up straw men arguments to further your doctrine-based deceits. But then that's all we get from you; lying for Jesus. Thou shalt not bear false witness. If your petty-minded little godling exists, I hope he remembers your lying for doctrine, and punishes accordingly.

Robert Byers wrote:In fact in a famous quote he said a critic just needed to demonstrate how macro evolution could not be true by the idea of small steps.

A famous quote, eh? How about you give us the quote then?

Robert Byers wrote:Always evolutionists try try to persuade the public or critics that macro evolution is proved by the reality of micro evolution.
Change in one creature, like a whale from a land creature, is the evidence for all creatures having changed.
They always invoke lines of reasoning to show why its reasonable or likely that all biology has evolved but they don't actually do science.

You're fucking joking, right? Have you any idea how much actual experimentation & scientific investigation goes on in the world? You do know that evolution has been witnessed under laboratory conditions, and seen to occur in the wild? And these 'lines of reasoning' are about accounting for evidence. It's part of science. If you'd studied science, rather than woodwork & lying for Jesus, you might have known that.

Robert Byers wrote:Evolutionism has not been very much a conclusion from biological research.
its been a hunch and lines of reasoning at the begining and when presented to the public and generally.
i think I'm very right here.

No, as always, you're very wrong.

Robert Byers wrote:Recently I've thought a lot about flaws in the claim that biological evolution is the result of biological science.
That is that since evolution is wrong mostly then it couldn't possibly be a product of a high standard of investigation called science.

One of the flaws missed by creationists and everyone is how Darwin and his followers don't actually make conclusions from biological research but from lines of reasoning.
Darwin constantly used the example of micro evolution evidence, real or not, to then say that macro evolution was reasonable and likely.
In fact in a famous quote he said a critic just needed to demonstrate how macro evolution could not be true by the idea of small steps.
Always evolutionists try try to persuade the public or critics that macro evolution is proved by the reality of micro evolution.
Change in one creature, like a whale from a land creature, is the evidence for all creatures having changed.
They always invoke lines of reasoning to show why its reasonable or likely that all biology has evolved but they don't actually do science.
Darwin started this but I see it all the time.
Evolutionism has not been very much a conclusion from biological research.
its been a hunch and lines of reasoning at the begining and when presented to the public and generally.
i think I'm very right here.

Who exactly are you trying to convince?

If it's anyone but yourself, then you're wasting your time with this stuff.

Hope that helps.

Of course it's evidence plus reasoning. Extremely large amounts of evidence from very disparate sources all showing the same thing, making the reasonable conclusion that there is indeed something there almost impossible to avoid. That's not all there is, however, you missed the next step. The next step is where we take all the evidence and the conclusions we have derived from the evidence and test it, like by saying "the evidence suggests that a particular morphological change happened at about this time so lets go and look in rocks from that time and see if there are fossils which show that change occurring" or "the evidence suggests that selection pressures cause populations to become fitter for those conditions under selection so lets put a population under a defined selection pressure and see if it becomes fitter".

So far evolution has passed all those tests. What testable predictions about observable reality does "majic man done it" make? Have any tests of these predictions ever shown that majic man actually does anything?

No, didn't think so.

Robert Byers wrote:Recently I've thought a lot

Obviously not enough, but what else is new?

You shouldn't bear false witness, you believe.

The biological research features in premises from which we draw conclusions. Is there something objectionable about this?

trubble76 wrote:You shouldn't bear false witness, you believe.

(polar) bears...?

How ironic for you to use the addition of "Logic applied" in your thread title, and then fail, as usual, to apply any logic

chairman bill wrote:

Robert Byers wrote:
i think I'm very right here.

No, as always, you're very wrong.

Sorry, don't kill the messenger, but I think that this time it is you who is wrong Bill. It is a correct answer, I believe, to the question "Where are you?". Of course you could counter that Robert Byers doesn't know his place and the adverb "very" is inappropriate. But then, there's Heisenberg's principle and perhaps if not the accuracy of thinking but the speed of thinking is very high, then the location is extremely well known. I rest my case.

Bert