A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[Subduction Zone]

What do you mean by undeniable evidence for evolution and evolution only?

Right now all scientific evidence supports evolution and only evolution.

There are no alternatives out there at this time. If you have any I would like to see an example along with the scientific evidence for it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Right now all scientific evidence supports evolution and only evolution.

There are no alternatives out there at this time. If you have any I would like to see an example along with the scientific evidence for it.

You have repeatedly said that there are many things that we don't know about evolution yet you continually claim that all the scientific evidence supports only a purely naturalistic evolution...devoid of God. If there are many important areas that remain unknown how can you objectively make such a claim?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have repeatedly said that there are many things that we don't know about evolution yet you continually claim that all the scientific evidence supports only a purely naturalistic evolution...devoid of God. If there are many important areas that remain unknown how can you objectively make such a claim?

There is no contradiction between those two claims. There could be scientific evidence against the theory of evolution that could be found, but I do not know of any. The main fault that there is no scientific evidence against evolution lies with creation "scientists". It is there inaction that can largely be blamed for that fact.

 

[RickG]

You have repeatedly said that there are many things that we don't know about evolution yet you continually claim that all the scientific evidence supports only a purely naturalistic evolution...devoid of God. If there are many important areas that remain unknown how can you objectively make such a claim?

Having areas unknown doesn't make what we do know false. It only leaves room for filling those gaps with better understanding.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There is no contradiction between those two claims. There could be scientific evidence against the theory of evolution that could be found, but I do not know of any. The main fault that there is no scientific evidence against evolution lies with creation "scientists". It is there inaction that can largely be blamed for that fact.

This doesn't make sense. 1. There is no contradiction between the two claims but you claim there is no reason for God in the equation even while admitting that there are unknowns in our scientific knowledge. 2. How is this in anyway the fault of Creation Scientist?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Having areas unknown doesn't make what we do know false. It only leaves room for filling those gaps with better understanding.

That is not the point Rick. SZ said:
Originally Posted by Subduction Zone

Right now all scientific evidence supports evolution and only evolution.

There are no alternatives out there at this time. If you have any I would like to see an example along with the scientific evidence for it.

He is making the claim that all scientific evidence supports evolution and only evolution when he admits that there are many unknowns within the theory. How can he objectively claim that there is only evidence of evolution devoid of God when he admits not all the evidence is even in? He can't even claim that with what we know now that God is not in evidence because there is no evidence that precludes God.

​

 

[RickG]

That is not the point Rick. SZ said:
Originally Posted by Subduction Zone

Right now all scientific evidence supports evolution and only evolution.

There are no alternatives out there at this time. If you have any I would like to see an example along with the scientific evidence for it.

He is making the claim that all scientific evidence supports evolution and only evolution when he admits that there are many unknowns within the theory. How can he objectively claim that there is only evidence of evolution devoid of God when he admits not all the evidence is even in? He can't even claim that with what we know now that God is not in evidence because there is no evidence that precludes God.

​

SD is correct, there are no scientific alternatives out there. The disagreements concerning ToE are in the details, not different theories.

 

[Oncedeceived]

SD is correct, there are no scientific alternatives out there. The disagreements concerning ToE are in the details, not different theories.

I am not talking about different theories. Either God created the universe and everything in it and we have labeled the evidence for that Creation evolution or God created nothing and we have no reason to believe that God exists anyway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This doesn't make sense. 1. There is no contradiction between the two claims but you claim there is no reason for God in the equation even while admitting that there are unknowns in our scientific knowledge. 2. How is this in anyway the fault of Creation Scientist?

Rick answered my your first question for me so I will concentrate on the second.

If you note I specified "scientific evidence". Scientific evidence is a special category of evidence. It is objective evidence that supports or refutes a scientific theory or hypothesis. Creation "scientists", sorry they are such a joke that I cannot do that without the scare quotes, have been shown to be wrong so many times that they no longer create scientific hypotheses of their own and put them out for testing. Without a hypothesis of creation, and how creation happened does not need to be explained by such a hypothesis, one that explains the diversity of life in view of creation would also be a "hypothesis of creation", they can have no scientific evidence that supports their claims.


In other words if creationists want to claim scientific evidence for creation then the onus is upon them to develop some sort of testable hypothesis first. An untestable hypothesis is almost worthless in the world of science. That is why there is no existing scientific evidence for creation. They may have tried to do so in the past but they were so quickly debunked that they seem gun shy now. In fact that is one reason that they now have their own "peer review". Peer review is designed to catch the grossest of errors in a scientific paper on a new idea. Getting a peer review paper published does not mean your idea is correct, it is merely the first step in getting a new idea published. Creation scientists will not even take that first step these days.

Nor have they found any evidence that I am aware of for the other possibility. They could find objective evidence that refutes the theory of evolution and that would meet the other part of my statement, that there is no evidence against the theory of evolution. All claims that have countered it, such as Behe's have been shown to be incorrect.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Rick answered my your first question for me so I will concentrate on the second.

If you note I specified "scientific evidence". Scientific evidence is a special category of evidence. It is objective evidence that supports or refutes a scientific theory or hypothesis. Creation "scientists", sorry they are such a joke that I cannot do that without the scare quotes, have been shown to be wrong so many times that they no longer create scientific hypotheses of their own and put them out for testing. Without a hypothesis of creation, and how creation happened does not need to be explained by such a hypothesis, one that explains the diversity of life in view of creation would also be a "hypothesis of creation", they can have no scientific evidence that supports their claims.


In other words if creationists want to claim scientific evidence for creation then the onus is upon them to develop some sort of testable hypothesis first. An untestable hypothesis is almost worthless in the world of science. That is why there is no existing scientific evidence for creation. They may have tried to do so in the past but they were so quickly debunked that they seem gun shy now. In fact that is one reason that they now have their own "peer review". Peer review is designed to catch the grossest of errors in a scientific paper on a new idea. Getting a peer review paper published does not mean your idea is correct, it is merely the first step in getting a new idea published. Creation scientists will not even take that first step these days.

Nor have they found any evidence that I am aware of for the other possibility. They could find objective evidence that refutes the theory of evolution and that would meet the other part of my statement, that there is no evidence against the theory of evolution. All claims that have countered it, such as Behe's have been shown to be incorrect.

He has been shown to be incorrect in claims he didn't make. There is a difference.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He has been shown to be incorrect in claims he didn't make. There is a difference.

Once again, in your own words tell me what you believe he claims and I will show you how he has been shown to be incorrect. It will do no good if I show how in my interpretation of his words he has been shown to be incorrect. I already did that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Once again, in your own words tell me what you believe he claims and I will show you how he has been shown to be incorrect. It will do no good if I show how in my interpretation of his words he has been shown to be incorrect. I already did that.

No you didn't. You provided Miller's interpretation of his words.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No you didn't. You provided Miller's interpretation of his words.

Wrong. The source that I used that debunked Behe was not Miller. Miller had a much simpler debunking of Behe's argument with a mousetrap. He concentrated on the blood clotting cascade. I could search for that more thorough debunking of Behe's work. He also seemed to have read the article that I cited and made his own much simpler version of it.

Behe has been debunked by several scientists, not just Miller. It seems that you have not been following all that closely.

So once again, in your words what do you think that Behe claimed. I will show how others have debunked that claim. That is as fair as anyone can be in a debate like this.

 

[stevevw]

Having areas unknown doesn't make what we do know false. It only leaves room for filling those gaps with better understanding.

But does having those unknowns then automatically assume that the theory is true. If it is admitted that there are unknown gaps to fill in to then be completely sure that the ToE is true how can you then say that its true and correct and scientists just need to find the rest of the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But does having those unknowns then automatically assume that the theory is true. If it is admitted that there are unknown gaps to fill in to then be completely sure that the ToE is true how can you then say that its true and correct and just needs to join the dots.

No one assumes a theory to be true. At best it is treated as being "provisionally true". But the theory of evolution has been tested so many times that scientists tend to treat is as factually true. Actually we can say that all life evolved is a fact. That has been more than shown to be true. The theory of evolution explains it. Here is a nice analogy. A heavy rock will drop when no longer supported by some means. That is a fact based upon gravity. The various theories of gravity explain that fact.

The theories may be improved or changed in other ways, they may even be dropped. The facts do not tend to change.

 

[Dizredux]

Once,

It might be worth your while to read at least some of the transcript from the Dover trial.

Behe's cross examination is something you probably need to be aware of if you are going to defend him and his ideas.

Kitzmiller Trial Transcripts | NCSE

Behe's cross begins PM 10-18 page 23.

It is an interesting read no matter what side you are on.

Dizredux

 

[Dizredux]

But does having those unknowns then automatically assume that the theory is true. If it is admitted that there are unknown gaps to fill in to then be completely sure that the ToE is true how can you then say that its true and correct and scientists just need to find the rest of the evidence.

Something to keep in mind is that all scientific theories are provisional in nature. This is a bedrock characteristic of the scientific method. It is *always* left open that new information could be found that would result in either a change of a theory or even the complete falsification of that theory.

With that in mind, in science, the TOE is taken by the consensus of the field as fact with fact being as proposed by Gould:

In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms-Stephen Jay Gould

So you can see that no scientific theory is assumed to be true, just the opposite. The best a theory can do is to be accepted as true similar to the definition of fact given above.

The TOE falls into this category. It has so much evidence supporting it and so many attempts to falsify it that have all failed that it could be termed as confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.

Good question though.

Dizredux

 

[stevevw]

Something to keep in mind is that all scientific theories are provisional in nature. This is a bedrock characteristic of the scientific method. It is *always* left open that new information could be found that would result in either a change of a theory or even the complete falsification of that theory.

With that in mind, in science, the TOE is taken by the consensus of the field as fact with fact being as proposed by Gould: So you can see that no scientific theory is assumed to be true, just the opposite. The best a theory can do is to be accepted as true similar to the definition of fact given above.

The TOE falls into this category. It has so much evidence supporting it and so many attempts to falsify it that have all failed that it could be termed as confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.

Good question though.

Dizredux

What are some of the evidences that show the ToE to be assumed true. I dont mean the whole theory spelt out just a couple of evidences that support it.

 

[stevevw]

No one assumes a theory to be true. At best it is treated as being "provisionally true". But the theory of evolution has been tested so many times that scientists tend to treat is as factually true. Actually we can say that all life evolved is a fact. That has been more than shown to be true. The theory of evolution explains it. Here is a nice analogy. A heavy rock will drop when no longer supported by some means. That is a fact based upon gravity. The various theories of gravity explain that fact.

The theories may be improved or changed in other ways, they may even be dropped. The facts do not tend to change.

I what ways do they test the theory.

 

[Dizredux]

What are some of the evidences that show the ToE to be assumed true. I dont mean the whole theory spelt out just a couple of evidences that support it.

Probably, at least to me, the strongest evidence are the twin nested hierarchies (Morphologic and genetic) in which the pattern of similarities both with phenotype and genotype closely match. Evolution explains this well and nothing else does as far as I can tell.

Here are a few more if you are interested.
Observed evolution in existing populations (Linski's work as an example)
Biogeography-Distribution of species
Plant and animal breeding-Natural and human selection work on the same dynamics.
Embryology-The similarities are amazing.

On each of these, evolution explains the dynamics and results well and no other scientific theory does.

There are a number of others but I feel the hierarchies are the strongest.

Oh yes, the TOE is not assumed to be true, it is inferred from the evidence. With the examples given, the TOE is the only thing we have that explains what we find.

Dizredux