Its oh so quiet Shh Shh

[guidofatherof5]

What a terrible situation in CT. Our thoughts and prayers go out to all the parents who lost children and to the families of the adults that died.

I do know that LeAnn's (Mommy2many) children are safe.

[ConcinusMan]

No, they demonstrate that evolution has taken place.

Not interested in what has already taken place. I'm interested in what has been observed.

Already observed. Took 60 days.

I'm not convinced that evolution is what they observed. They failed to prove it beyond any doubt.

[-MARWOLAETH-]

What a terrible situation in CT. Our thoughts and prayers go out to all the parents who lost children and to the families of the adults that died.

I do know that LeAnn's (Mommy2many) children are safe.

What happened there?

[ConcinusMan]

18 elementary school kids shot dead this morning. A few adults dead too I believe. People are just nucking futs. I don't think anyone in the U.S. can turn on the TV without seeing the news reports on every channel. It's all that's on.

Just google "18 children dead" and you'll see what happened. Someone went on a rampage in Oregon too, a couple of days ago at a shopping mall but luckily, only one person was shot, expected to live, and gunman dead.

[Stefan-A]

Not interested in what has already taken place. I'm interested in what has been observed.

No you're not, you're ignoring what's been observed.

I'm not convinced that evolution is what they observed. They failed to prove it beyond any doubt.

There's a difference between doubt and denial.

[ConcinusMan]

No you're not, you're ignoring what's been observed.

What has been observed is the question that is still in doubt but I suppose it always will be.

There's a difference between doubt and denial.

There's also a difference between absolute undeniable proof, and interpretation of the evidence. Believing is seeing. I want to believe that it has been observed. That doesn't make it so. Remember, I'm on your "side" but I still don't believe that they have proven their case beyond doubt.

[ConcinusMan]

18 elementary school kids shot dead this morning.

Make it 20. Crap.

[Stefan-A]

What has been observed is the question that is still in doubt but I suppose it always will be.

I already told you how to find out what's been observed. At this point you are trying very hard not to see what's right in front of you.

There's also a difference between absolute undeniable proof,

Does proof stop being undeniable, when someone denies it?

and interpretation of the evidence.

You can't ignore the evidence and pretend you've got a better interpretation of it.

Believing is seeing.

What?

I want to believe that it has been observed.

Well isn't that special. Apparently you don't want it hard enough to actually use Google and type "observed instances of speciation", with or without quotation marks.

Remember, I'm on your "side"

Not buying it, sorry. Also, not interested.

but I still don't believe that they have proven their case beyond doubt.

They have. Beyond all doubt, including reasonable doubt. What remains is denial.

[ConcinusMan]

I already told you how to find out what's been observed. At this point you are trying very hard not to see what's right in front of you.

I have looked at what has been observed. I am trying very hard to see it as proof. I shouldn't have to try so hard. It should be obvious, but it's not. All one has to do is to set aside his beliefs and look at the "evidence" objectively to see that they still have failed to eliminate any other plausible interpretation of what has been observed. That is what I mean by "Believing is seeing".

Does proof stop being undeniable, when someone denies it?

No, it becomes undeniable when there is no other possible interpretation/explanation for what has been observed.

You can't ignore the evidence and pretend you've got a better interpretation of it.

They have. Beyond all doubt, including reasonable doubt. What remains is denial.

Define "better". Define "reasonable" for that matter. What is reasonable to one, can be unreasonable to another. Same goes for "better".

Is any one explanation of what has been observed truly any less "reasonable" or "better" than the other? That all depends on the observer doesn't it?

[Stefan-A]

I have looked at what has been observed.

Good. Now try to understand that observing it in real time is little more than a curiosity, the real evidence is genetic.

I am trying very hard to see it as proof. I shouldn't have to try so hard.

Why, and why not?

It should be obvious,

Why?

but it's not.

It is obvious.

All one has to do is to set aside his beliefs and look at the "evidence"

No quotation marks around evidence. It is evidence. Some would even call it proof, in the colloquial sense.

objectively to see that they still have failed to eliminate any other plausible interpretation of what has been observed.

They haven't failed to do that. What would you consider another plausible interpretation?

That is what I mean by "Believing is seeing".

It still makes no sense.

Define "better".

Actually, that's your job at this point.

Define "reasonable" for that matter.

To what end?

What is reasonable to one, can be unreasonable to another.

Not really. Some forms of logic can be applied, some can't. It has nothing to do with the observer.

Same goes for "better".

Not a matter of preference, sorry.

Is any one explanation of what has been observed

Such as? Go on. Which explanations are you referring to here? No point in being unnecessarily vague.

truly any less "reasonable" or "better" than the other?

Yes.

That all depends on the observer doesn't it?

No.


Let's give the wolf & shrew issue another go. I posed a few questions, I'd like to have them answered, so that we can make some actual progress.