AntiSleep: Evolution is the best and most accurate theory we can make based off all the evidence, observations, and tests. Cheeze: Tell me how you can prove it, so and so forth. Repeat, ad infinitum. Let's get a move on with this conversation. Ok, basically, anti cannot prove evolution, he never said he could, nor has he attempted to do so. Remember, scientific theories are constantly being added to, refined, reformed, adapted, and so forth overtime. It is not claimed to be the perfect, and only possible solution, it is not claimed to be completely proven. (as Anti has indirectly or indirectly said more than once) Cheeze, there is a testable procedure for a scientific experiment that exists for evolution. It has happened over the last several hundreds of millions of years, and now we are observing it and dechipering it (note all the facts anti has listed here), then making conclusions. In addition, this experiment goes on today and will continue to as long as we exist, it is just a very long, drawn out experiment; it does not necessarily require a definite end in sight for us to begin making our conclusions. Evolution is something that can be everything save 100% proven based off your definitions. Creationism and ID cannot even attempted to be proven, nor do they really relate in substance to that of Evolution in the first place, only in subject matter. Also, you make a point against your attempt to argue for creationism when you say the Flying Pink Unicorn is as valid as the God that most people believe in, true as it may be. All you're really saying is, "creationism is possible", well, we know that already, as anti has said, that is useless as is.

AntiSleep: Evolution is the best and most accurate theory we can make based off all the evidence, observations, and tests.

Cheeze: Tell me how you can prove it, so and so forth.

Repeat, ad infinitum.

Let's get a move on with this conversation.

Ok, basically, anti cannot prove evolution, he never said he could, nor has he attempted to do so. Remember, scientific theories are constantly being added to, refined, reformed, adapted, and so forth overtime. It is not claimed to be the perfect, and only possible solution, it is not claimed to be completely proven. (as Anti has indirectly or indirectly said more than once)

Cheeze, there is a testable procedure for a scientific experiment that exists for evolution. It has happened over the last several hundreds of millions of years, and now we are observing it and dechipering it (note all the facts anti has listed here), then making conclusions. In addition, this experiment goes on today and will continue to as long as we exist, it is just a very long, drawn out experiment; it does not necessarily require a definite end in sight for us to begin making our conclusions.

Evolution is something that can be everything save 100% proven based off your definitions. Creationism and ID cannot even attempted to be proven, nor do they really relate in substance to that of Evolution in the first place, only in subject matter. Also, you make a point against your attempt to argue for creationism when you say the Flying Pink Unicorn is as valid as the God that most people believe in, true as it may be. All you're really saying is, "creationism is possible", well, we know that already, as anti has said, that is useless as is.

[quote]Cheeze: Tell me how you can prove it, so and so forth.[/quote] You [i]can't[/i]. [quote]Cheeze, there is a testable procedure for a scientific experiment that exists for evolution. It has happened over the last several hundreds of millions of years..In addition, this experiment goes on today and will continue to as long as we exist, it is just a very long, drawn out experiment; it does not necessarily require a definite end in sight for us to begin making our conclusions.[/quote] I'm sorry; for it to be a testable procedure, anyone must be able to repeat the experiment. This means it cannot be an experiment that requires infinite time (or a finite time that is beyond the life span of a species). Since we cannot repeat this 100million year old experiment, it is not a valid experiment by the scientific community. [quote]and now we are observing it and dechipering it (note all the facts anti has listed here), then making conclusions.[/quote] And so, it is observable evidence and not testable. Thanks for agreeing with me. [quote]Cheeze, it does not matter when the transitional fossils were buried, it matters only that they were discoveredafter the theory of evolution predicted their existence, and location in the strata relative to other organisms. You are trying to call verified predictions equivalent to existing evidence, when this is most definitely not the case.[/quote] I make the prediction that the sun will rise tomorrow. Let's assume it is already tomorrow so the evidence matches my prediction [i]in the future[/i]. Does this mean my prediction is accurate at all times? Absolutely not. Perhaps the sun will disappear tomorrow for some unknown reason or earth will no longer exist, etc. The point is I cannot "test" my prediction through all "tomorrows". Similarly, you cannot show transitional fossils for every single organism. This means the so called "proof" is incomplete and thus, is not a proof.

Quote

Cheeze: Tell me how you can prove it, so and so forth.

You can't.

Quote

Cheeze, there is a testable procedure for a scientific experiment that exists for evolution. It has happened over the last several hundreds of millions of years..In addition, this experiment goes on today and will continue to as long as we exist, it is just a very long, drawn out experiment; it does not necessarily require a definite end in sight for us to begin making our conclusions.

I'm sorry; for it to be a testable procedure, anyone must be able to repeat the experiment. This means it cannot be an experiment that requires infinite time (or a finite time that is beyond the life span of a species). Since we cannot repeat this 100million year old experiment, it is not a valid experiment by the scientific community.

Quote

and now we are observing it and dechipering it (note all the facts anti has listed here), then making conclusions.

And so, it is observable evidence and not testable. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Quote

Cheeze, it does not matter when the transitional fossils were buried, it matters only that they were discoveredafter the theory of evolution predicted their existence, and location in the strata relative to other organisms. You are trying to call verified predictions equivalent to existing evidence, when this is most definitely not the case.

I make the prediction that the sun will rise tomorrow. Let's assume it is already tomorrow so the evidence matches my prediction in the future. Does this mean my prediction is accurate at all times? Absolutely not. Perhaps the sun will disappear tomorrow for some unknown reason or earth will no longer exist, etc. The point is I cannot "test" my prediction through all "tomorrows". Similarly, you cannot show transitional fossils for every single organism. This means the so called "proof" is incomplete and thus, is not a proof.

It is about time you defined 'proof', as you use it, because you seem to be mistaken about what science is. Science is not based on axioms; it is inquiry based on incomplete data and incomplete knowledge, we use theories to provide a framework for understanding and to hint at where to look next. Science can by definition, never produce a proof. If something [I]can[/I] produce a proof, it is either math, or some other axiom based field of thought.

It is about time you defined 'proof', as you use it, because you seem to be mistaken about what science is. Science is not based on axioms; it is inquiry based on incomplete data and incomplete knowledge, we use theories to provide a framework for understanding and to hint at where to look next. Science can by definition, never produce a proof. If something can produce a proof, it is either math, or some other axiom based field of thought.

[QUOTE]You mean like in Jesus Camp (documentary)? I sure hope you don't consider yourself rationalist. [/QUOTE] No. I'm a part of a biblical research organization. And I have come up with proof of Creationism, if you would care to read it. Here is a good test to see if creationism is right or not. Go to the edge of the universe. In the bible it says it will be ice... reffered to as the deep. Now if there is endless ice at the edge of the universe, than Creationism is correct. Now if there isn't ice at the edge of the universe... lets say there isn't anything... than keep going.

Quote

You mean like in Jesus Camp (documentary)? I sure hope you don't consider yourself rationalist.

No. I'm a part of a biblical research organization.

And I have come up with proof of Creationism, if you would care to read it.
Here is a good test to see if creationism is right or not. Go to the edge of the universe. In the bible it says it will be ice... reffered to as the deep. Now if there is endless ice at the edge of the universe, than Creationism is correct. Now if there isn't ice at the edge of the universe... lets say there isn't anything... than keep going.

[quote=AntiSleep]It is about time you defined 'proof', as you use it, because you seem to be mistaken about what science is. Science is not based on axioms; it is inquiry based on incomplete data and incomplete knowledge, we use theories to provide a framework for understanding and to hint at where to look next. [b][i]Science can by definition, never produce a proof.[/i][/b] If something [I]can[/I] produce a proof, it is either math, or some other axiom based field of thought.[/quote] I win. :D Thanks. It was fun debating here. :lol:

Quote from AntiSleep

It is about time you defined 'proof', as you use it, because you seem to be mistaken about what science is. Science is not based on axioms; it is inquiry based on incomplete data and incomplete knowledge, we use theories to provide a framework for understanding and to hint at where to look next. Science can by definition, never produce a proof. If something can produce a proof, it is either math, or some other axiom based field of thought.

I win. Thanks.

It was fun debating here.

If by 'win' you mean you ask for something that is completely pointless and irrelevant, then yes.

If by 'win' you mean you ask for something that is completely pointless and irrelevant, then yes.

Actually I'm going to have to say AntiSleep wins.

Actually I'm going to have to say AntiSleep wins.

[QUOTE=cheeze]You can't.[/QUOTE] That's what I said. [QUOTE=cheeze]I win. Thanks. It was fun debating here[/QUOTE] No one ever said it could be proven. We never argued with you on that fact. All you did was make a point of which we were already aware, then after we agreed with you, you said you won. But, I think you're aware you didn't really win anything as it is, at least I hope. [QUOTE=AntiSleep]If by 'win' you mean you asked for something that is completely pointless and irrelevant, then yes.[/QUOTE]

Quote from cheeze

You can't.

That's what I said.

Quote from cheeze

I win. Thanks.

It was fun debating here

No one ever said it could be proven. We never argued with you on that fact. All you did was make a point of which we were already aware, then after we agreed with you, you said you won. But, I think you're aware you didn't really win anything as it is, at least I hope.

Quote from AntiSleep

If by 'win' you mean you asked for something that is completely pointless and irrelevant, then yes.

Ah I need to stop trolling. :} You guys are funny. Everything I said was to see if you guys could actually hold a decent argument, but you guys failed. :><: But that's ok, you're just learning. ^^

Ah I need to stop trolling.

You guys are funny. Everything I said was to see if you guys could actually hold a decent argument, but you guys failed.
But that's ok, you're just learning.

The only thing I fail at is seeing how you could possibly say we can't hold a decent arguement. It was hardly even an arguement in the first place. Didn't you just say you need to stop trolling? :|

The only thing I fail at is seeing how you could possibly say we can't hold a decent arguement. It was hardly even an arguement in the first place. Didn't you just say you need to stop trolling?

Nah, there was definitely an argument; although it was probably some what hard to understand (and possibly misrepresented based on the huge number of irrelevant information posted by AntiSleep).

Nah, there was definitely an argument; although it was probably some what hard to understand (and possibly misrepresented based on the huge number of irrelevant information posted by AntiSleep).

[QUOTE]Nah, there was definitely an argument; although it was probably some what hard to understand[/QUOTE] I'll give you that, but I don't think it was hard to understand. Would you care to point out where I failed at arguing though? I don't recall a single time not replying to exactly what you said, or at the least to what I thought your point might be. :-_-:

Quote

Nah, there was definitely an argument; although it was probably some what hard to understand

I'll give you that, but I don't think it was hard to understand. Would you care to point out where I failed at arguing though? I don't recall a single time not replying to exactly what you said, or at the least to what I thought your point might be.

[quote=AntiSleep][quote=cheeze] You didn't respond to the second part of my challenge. [quote]If you want anything more specific, you need to answer the following 2 questions: 1) Within an order of magnitude, how old is Earth? 2) What is science, and how is it useful?[/quote] 1. My personal opinion has no relevance to my argument. 2. Science is cool says Bill Nye the Science Guy.[/quote]Those questions were there to see if you were just trying to waste my time, it seems that you are. [quote=cheeze] I think there's a very big difference between "proof" and "strong evidence".[/quote][B]Proof implies definition, a foundation based on axioms, evidence implies observation and testing, to try and discover the definitions, and the latter is all we have because we do not know upon what exact definitions the universe is built. [/B] Until we know we can take these definitions for granted(I am unsure we ever will be), there is no way to know we have not been deceived, mistaken, or just benighted. This does not give any credibility to creationism, and as you have not defined what you mean by creationism, I cannot answer that question.[quote] I can prove to you that 2+2=4. I cannot prove to you that every star is hot. So which category does evolution fit in? Now explain to me how you can disprove creationism.[/quote]I have proved that Creationism is useless(which is as far as I really see necessary), but if you [B]define[/B] creationism, along with any textual assumptions that the account requires, I may indeed be able to disprove it.[/quote] [quote=cheeze]Similarly, you cannot show transitional fossils for every single organism.[B] This means the so called "proof" is incomplete and thus, is not a proof.[/B][/quote] [quote=AntiSleep][B]It is about time you defined 'proof',[/B] as you use it, because you seem to be mistaken about what science is. Science is not based on axioms; it is inquiry based on incomplete data and incomplete knowledge, we use theories to provide a framework for understanding and to hint at where to look next. Science can by definition, never produce a proof. [B]If something [I]can[/I] produce a proof, it is either math, or some other axiom based field of thought.[/B][/quote]I have yet to see you define what you meant by 'proof' in this context, A proof is a logical argument, not an empirical one, meaning it is based upon axioms, but the definition you are using sounds different. [quote=cheeze]Nah, there was definitely an argument; although it was probably some what hard to understand (and possibly misrepresented based on the huge number of irrelevant information posted by AntiSleep).[/quote]How is this irrelevant?

Quote from AntiSleep

Quote from cheeze

You didn't respond to the second part of my challenge.

Quote

If you want anything more specific, you need to answer the following 2 questions:
1) Within an order of magnitude, how old is Earth?
2) What is science, and how is it useful?

1. My personal opinion has no relevance to my argument.
2. Science is cool says Bill Nye the Science Guy.

Those questions were there to see if you were just trying to waste my time, it seems that you are.

Quote from cheeze

I think there's a very big difference between "proof" and "strong evidence".

Proof implies definition, a foundation based on axioms, evidence implies observation and testing, to try and discover the definitions, and the latter is all we have because we do not know upon what exact definitions the universe is built. Until we know we can take these definitions for granted(I am unsure we ever will be), there is no way to know we have not been deceived, mistaken, or just benighted. This does not give any credibility to creationism, and as you have not defined what you mean by creationism, I cannot answer that question.

Quote

I can prove to you that 2+2=4. I cannot prove to you that every star is hot. So which category does evolution fit in?

Now explain to me how you can disprove creationism.

I have proved that Creationism is useless(which is as far as I really see necessary), but if you define creationism, along with any textual assumptions that the account requires, I may indeed be able to disprove it.

Quote from cheeze

Similarly, you cannot show transitional fossils for every single organism. This means the so called "proof" is incomplete and thus, is not a proof.

Quote from AntiSleep

It is about time you defined 'proof', as you use it, because you seem to be mistaken about what science is. Science is not based on axioms; it is inquiry based on incomplete data and incomplete knowledge, we use theories to provide a framework for understanding and to hint at where to look next. Science can by definition, never produce a proof. If something can produce a proof, it is either math, or some other axiom based field of thought.

I have yet to see you define what you meant by 'proof' in this context, A proof is a logical argument, not an empirical one, meaning it is based upon axioms, but the definition you are using sounds different.

Quote from cheeze

Nah, there was definitely an argument; although it was probably some what hard to understand (and possibly misrepresented based on the huge number of irrelevant information posted by AntiSleep).

How is this irrelevant?

[QUOTE]How is this irrelevant?[/QUOTE] You brought up lots of stuff with the fossils and such, which wasn't what cheeze was looking for, and thus became irrelevant as he viewed it. I wouldn't call it irrelevant though, I would just call it excessive, or more informative than was necessary. If you had just left your responses to what you just bolded and little else, he might have realized you said you couldn't prove evolution from the get go. Although you asking him to define creationism and proof as he meant it was totally necessary. And he is still yet to do those things, which that doesn't matter at this point.

Quote

How is this irrelevant?

You brought up lots of stuff with the fossils and such, which wasn't what cheeze was looking for, and thus became irrelevant as he viewed it. I wouldn't call it irrelevant though, I would just call it excessive, or more informative than was necessary. If you had just left your responses to what you just bolded and little else, he might have realized you said you couldn't prove evolution from the get go. Although you asking him to define creationism and proof as he meant it was totally necessary. And he is still yet to do those things, which that doesn't matter at this point.

[quote=Akar][QUOTE]You mean like in Jesus Camp (documentary)? I sure hope you don't consider yourself rationalist. [/QUOTE] No. I'm a part of a biblical research organization. And I have come up with proof of Creationism, if you would care to read it. Here is a good test to see if creationism is right or not. Go to the edge of the universe. In the bible it says it will be ice... reffered to as the deep. Now if there is endless ice at the edge of the universe, than Creationism is correct. Now if there isn't ice at the edge of the universe... lets say there isn't anything... than keep going.[/quote] We'd be able to see it with telescopes.

Quote from Akar

Quote

You mean like in Jesus Camp (documentary)? I sure hope you don't consider yourself rationalist.

No. I'm a part of a biblical research organization.

And I have come up with proof of Creationism, if you would care to read it.
Here is a good test to see if creationism is right or not. Go to the edge of the universe. In the bible it says it will be ice... reffered to as the deep. Now if there is endless ice at the edge of the universe, than Creationism is correct. Now if there isn't ice at the edge of the universe... lets say there isn't anything... than keep going.

We'd be able to see it with telescopes.

[QUOTE]We'd be able to see it with telescopes.[/QUOTE] You're joking right?

Quote

We'd be able to see it with telescopes.

You're joking right?