I meant the stuff being studied, not the study itself.
The answer is surely obvious. The evidence "came from" the hard work and diligence of those working in the natural sciences over a long period of time.
Upvote
0
I meant the stuff being studied, not the study itself.
The following question has been posted on a creation website: "...tell me of the one piece of “evidence” that unequivocally proves evolution or even ages of millions of years..." What is it?
Well if you believe in God, you believe the stuff comes from God. And if so the question arises that if said stuff continually demonstrates an old earth and evolution then logically and reasonably one can say the earth is old and evolution was gods mechanism for developing life. Unless you believe in young earth creationism and god fooled the entirety of science with false data. Possible but it would speak of a very different god than many ascribe to.Where did all the 'evidence' come from?
Well if you believe in God, you believe the stuff comes from God. And if so the question arises that if said stuff continually demonstrates an old earth and evolution then logically and reasonably one can say the earth is old and evolution was gods mechanism for developing life. Unless you believe in young earth creationism and god fooled the entirety of science with false data. Possible but it would speak of a very different god than many ascribe to.
Watch how they define evidence. In science it should be direct observation. So we should see genotypes change due to new information, not just an expression of previously hidden phenotypes. Also, we should see the original event that started life continue to replicate on a constant basis. Whether that event is lightning resulting in "goo" or crystals producing organic functioning--we should see it continuously happening. If it only happened once it wouldn't be verifiable and wouldn't be science. It also never would have produced enough simplistic life forms to have survived all the environmental exposures so as to reproduce generation after generation until they could evolve into more complex species. Anything happening frequently enough for that kind of survivability would be happening again and again all around us--not some random one time event. That notion alone points to God!The following question has been posted on a creation website: "...tell me of the one piece of “evidence” that unequivocally proves evolution or even ages of millions of years..." What is it?
I guess ultimately I'd also have to say that I have no problem with people who don't buy into the Genesis account of creation. My problem is people who present a philosophical theory as a scientific theory. Like it or not, science has a defined process and that process involves direct observation. Therefore, by the nature of scientific methodolgy, not everything falls under "science". It just doesn't. Until someone directly observes evolution happening, it's a scientific hypothesis--and no amount of writings and musings within the scientific community will change that. None of those things takes the place of the scientific method.The following question has been posted on a creation website: "...tell me of the one piece of “evidence” that unequivocally proves evolution or even ages of millions of years..." What is it?
Watch how they define evidence. In science it should be direct observation. So we should see genotypes change due to new information, not just an expression of previously hidden phenotypes. Also, we should see the original event that started life continue to replicate on a constant basis. Whether that event is lightning resulting in "goo" or crystals producing organic functioning--we should see it continuously happening. If it only happened once it wouldn't be verifiable and wouldn't be science. It also never would have produced enough simplistic life forms to have survived all the environmental exposures so as to reproduce generation after generation until they could evolve into more complex species. Anything happening frequently enough for that kind of survivability would be happening again and again all around us--not some random one time event. That notion alone points to God!
For the "theory" to stand it would indeed require life to come from no-life. No matter incremental you make it, at some point something that wasn't alive became alive, according to the "theory". It can't be avoided.Firstly, evolution doesn't deal with the beginning of life, but the diversification of it.
Secondly, the idea that, because something happened once, it can't be verified, is silly. How do you think forensic science works?
You have some misunderstandings about what it means to 'observe' something in science. It doesn't have to be 'direct'
You have some misunderstandings about what 'observation' in science means. You don't have to see it happening right in front of you in order to know it happened or has happened or will happen. You observe the data.
I'm an OEC. I believe the geologic record shows more ruin/restoration (re-creation) than evolution.
This is erroneous. Scientists may be trying to operate this way, but will come to bad conclusions. Observing effects simply won't guarantee you've come to appropriate conclusions regarding cause. I learned this as a five year old shaking my Christmas presents to try to figure out what was inside. It's the same principle. Observation as a word actually means observation.You have some misunderstandings about what 'observation' in science means. You don't have to see it happening right in front of you in order to know it happened or has happened or will happen. You observe the data.
That's what he's asking for. The evidence. Not effects that "appear" to point to a presupposed cause.Beliefs do not trump well evidenced scientific theories.
This is erroneous.
Scientists may be trying to operate this way, but will come to bad conclusions. Observing effects simply won't guarantee you've come to appropriate conclusions regarding cause.
I learned this as a five year old shaking my Christmas presents to try to figure out what was inside. It's the same principle. Observation as a word actually means observation.
Observations yield what scientists call data. Whether the observation is an experimentalresult, radiation measurements taken from an orbiting satellite, an infrared recording of a volcanic eruption, or just noticing that a certain bird species always thumps the ground with its foot while foraging — they're all data. Scientists analyze and interpret data in order to figure out how those data inform their hypotheses and theories. Do they support one idea over others, help refute an idea, or suggest an entirely new explanation? Though data may seem complex and be represented by detailed graphs or complex statistical analyses, it's important to remember that, at the most basic level, they are simply observations.
For the "theory" to stand it would indeed require life to come from no-life.
No matter incremental you make it, at some point something that wasn't alive became alive, according to the "theory". It can't be avoided.
That's what he's asking for. The evidence.
Not effects that "appear" to point to a presupposed cause.
I guess ultimately I'd also have to say that I have no problem with people who don't buy into the Genesis account of creation. My problem is people who present a philosophical theory as a scientific theory. Like it or not, science has a defined process and that process involves direct observation.
Until someone directly observes evolution happening, it's a scientific hypothesis--and no amount of writings and musings within the scientific community will change that.
None of those things takes the place of the scientific method.
It's okay for it to be a philosophical theory rather than a scientific one.
Sure. But that makes it unverifiable and therefore not a scientific theory, but a philosophical one. Which, again, is fine. But we need to just admit that.
Watch how they define evidence. In science it should be direct observation.
So we should see genotypes change due to new information, not just an expression of previously hidden phenotypes.
Also, we should see the original event that started life continue to replicate on a constant basis.
This is erroneous. Scientists may be trying to operate this way, but will come to bad conclusions. Observing effects simply won't guarantee you've come to appropriate conclusions regarding cause. I learned this as a five year old shaking my Christmas presents to try to figure out what was inside. It's the same principle. Observation as a word actually means observation.
No....that's not the same. Unless they get something like video (direct observation) or a confession, the court case is going to involve having to convince the jury that the conclusions the PD came to are in fact correct. The jury may not be convinced.Feel free to go down to your local PD and tell the detectives they aren't doing their jobs correctly.
No....that's not the same. Unless they get something like video (direct observation) or a confession, the court case is going to involve having to convince the jury that the conclusions the PD came to are in fact correct. The jury may not be convinced.
This "jury" isn't.
I hope you don't believe our legal system simply throws people in prison because the "Scientist Police" have determined they're guilty.