Why evolution isn't scientific

[the iconoclast]

Hey kylie got bored waiting for sfs.

I'm not sure why you are going on about this. You said that my existence was like God's existence, and you asked me how I could prove to you that I exist. I gave you an example. So I showed that it is indeed possible for me to prove that I exist.

We came to the conclusion that one or the other will need to make contact, go through the right channels, get the right info and find where the other is. Then one or the other could be shaken by the shoulders.

Iconoclast - " What other ways can you suggest"

Kylie - "No idea."

Now it's your turn - what could God do to prove to me that he exists?

Convince you to “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Acts 2:38 The proof depends on you. Ask me more?

You are attempting to get out of proving your point.

This is a logic challenge and we are no where finished yet. The point re existance has been concluded ie there is only one option unless you can provide an alternative?

I have given you a clear and easy to understand example of how I can prove to you that I exist beyond reasonable doubt.

I agree.

Now it is time for you to tell me how God could prove to me that he exists beyond reasonable doubt.

Would you being willing to do what it takes? Are you committed to finding out?

Yes, I know what objective means.

Excellant. We are on the same page.

That's a terrible way of getting proof.

How did you come to this conclusion?

People have done this and gotten "proof" of all sorts of things.

What all sorts of proof are these?

You are asking me to accept subjective experience as objective fact.

Actually i havent asked that of you. I have directed many questions at you though. Why can a scientist verify a religious experience but how ever a religious person cannot?

By your argument, I can claim that one plus one equals red because I really feel it in my heart, and I have faith that adding numbers together makes a colour.

That is not what i said and you are putting words into my mouth. What you did explain was an example of a category error. Please show me where i made one?

If I said I could prove to you that I exist by just asking you to accept in your heart that I exist, does that sound like a good way of knowing if I really exist?

Well if you didnt have faith i existed you wouldnt come and shake me by the shoulders. What motivation would you have to do so? Having faith is the first step to seeking, you would not do so if you doubted?

Of course not. It's a rubbish way. And it doesn't stop being rubbish if you try to use it to determine the existence of God rather than me.

Lets consider the nature of God. Why is it a rubbish way?

Telling people to not think about it and just take your word for it is not providing proof.

You are putting words into my mouth but while we are here. Would that also apply to @VirOptimus?

Optimus - "The ToE just is."

How about what you said below?

Kylie - "The only rational thing he can do is to accept that the people who have studied the idea in depth and who have much greater knowledge about the idea than he has are much more likely to get accurate information and conclusions."

I'm sorry, I forgot that you seem to need everything spelled out in detail for you.

Haha nice!! It would not be a normal discussion with an atheist unless they mock you.

Our understanding of how evolution works is an important tool in understanding how life works.

How is that so?

I'd say that the second definition, "a thing used to help perform a job" works well. Sure, it's not a physical thing, but it's an idea that helps us work with information we have gathered about the real world.

That implies a catalyst. How is evolution a thing used to help perform a job ie you ellude to a task? (.eg a piece of work to be done or undertaken.) Why couldnt God be this catalyst?

No. You do not understand how this works.

Well lets examine your explanation.

If your dentist tells you that your mouth pain is caused by wisdom teeth growing in, and he has reached that conclusion because he has got the x-rays showing it, you don't get to say he's wrong because you don't think dentists know the truth about mouth fairies that living in your gums.

Haha mouth faires. When i got my wisdom teeth pulled out, i knew it was my wisdom teeth. I did not need a xray to prove that and neither did he, he poked around and came to that conclusion based on my painful reaction - so did i. He did xray to see how deep the roots were and to recommend surgery. Now would i go to him if i knew he was an unfit dentist? If i did not know his reputation or experience his service, then how would it not be trust based on no evidence?

But hey, if you wanna make that argument, then I reject you as an expert on any religious matter.

You are free to do so.

Therefore your claims about any religious idea are automatically wrong, and any attempt to defend your own position is just a logical fallacy.

Haha. If someone steals a car, do i need to be a policeman or a lawmaker to know that is a crime?

So you've just disproved yourself.

Dont get too excited! Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

No, here's where you are mistaken. That is not the next step. That is the FIRST step. Before you actually "believe" / accept the proposition. That is, if you care about being rational.




I don't know. What objectively testable predictions does it make?



Religious faith, is belief without evidence.



If you need to appeal to children's blind acceptance of what perceived authorities tell them, in order to draw an analogy for your religious beliefs, then you are just making my point for me.

Indeed, it is juvenile. Children grow out of such blind acceptance of what authorities tell them. As an adult, there are other standards to adhere to.



No, that's not faith in the religious sense. That's a reasonable and rational expectation based on the objective evidence and track record of medical science.

Faith in the religious sense, would be more like believing that your car mechanic with no medical training whatsoever, is able to cure your cancer. There's no objective evidence or track record for that.



Not blindly, no. I require objective reasons for putting my trust in something. Also, real world situations are false analogies. Real world situations don't require me to believe that natural laws have been suspended or violated.
Your religious claims, do.



No. This is where bias comes into play.
To distinguish true from false, you require objective means to make that evaluation. Counting only on your own experience (or more exactly, your interpretation thereof...) is subjective.



Religious faith isn't.
Trust is based on objective track records.
Religious faith, is blind acceptance of propositions.



No. I have no problem acknowledging ignorance and just saying "i don't know".
Appeal to authority, btw, is a logical fallacy.



Which thoughts and conclusions are you talking about?



It's not artwork.
You seem to think that such diagrams are dreamed up. They aren't. They are factual representations of shared genetics, anatomy, geographic distribution, etc.

These days, they aren't even drawn. They are auto-generated, based on completely sequenced genomes, by algoritms. And the only thing these algorithms do, is compare sequences of DNA and map out matches.

If the matches end up in a bush instead of a tree, then that is the graph that the algorithm will generate. But it isn't. It's a nested hierarchy. Every time. And it matches the hierachies if you look at just sequences of DNA, individual genes, entire genomes, comparative anatomy, etc.

These are all independent datasets that perfectly converge on the exact same answer, every single time.


So you can auto-dissmiss that as well out of ignorance?
First, try to comprehend this one properly.



I'm not going to give you an education in the evolutionary process.

In short:
- every new born comes with a set of mutations.
- every new born inherits its genes from its parents, including the mutations of those parents, while adding its own mutations.
- generation after generation, accumulation takes place of the mutations of the ancestors plus the mutations of the individual
- a diverging family / phylogenetic tree is the only possible outcome. Well... that, or extinction.



Or you're just ignorant / uneducated concerning the subject, off course.
As you clearly are, as proven in the above paragraphes. When you think that a phylogenetic tree is "just artwork", then clearly you aren't well informed.
If you then also need to ask how the evolution process produces such hierarchies, then clearly you don't have a clue.

That's fine. Ignorance is easily cured, after all. It just takes a bit of study.
Off course, if you are unwilling to put in the effort to do that, then you'll just miss the facts. But then you don't get to argue about it either. Or at least, your opinions about it are worthless / meaningless.



Not "absolutely" certain - in science, nothing is "absolutely" certain.
But it surely is as certain as it gets in science. And what makes that a true statement - I just explained it to you: convergence on the exact same conclusion by literally all relevant sets of (independent) data, that you can even cross reference with other sciences like geology and geological timelines. And literally not a single piece of evidence that contradicts it.

That's about as good as it ever gets in science. This makes evolution one of the most, if not THE most supported, theories in all of science.

We know more about evolution then we know about atoms.



It is literally what evolution explains.
Inheritance of traits and genetic isolation, inevitably leading to divergence.



Not at all what I said.

Hey hey dh

I know your not a fan of long posts, would you like to hit me with your best shot or tackle my entire reply?

Cheers

 

[Kylie]

We came to the conclusion that one or the other will need to make contact, go through the right channels, get the right info and find where the other is. Then one or the other could be shaken by the shoulders.

Iconoclast - " What other ways can you suggest"

Kylie - "No idea."

And...?

Surely this is something God is capable of. I mean, he was doing stuff like this all the time in the Old testament, burning bushes, sending angels floating down from heaven, loud voices from the sky, stopping the movement of the sun...

Convince you to “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Acts 2:38 The proof depends on you. Ask me more?

So I prove to you that I am really by going to visit you and appearing before you.

God can only convince me by sending someone else to convince me to lower my standards of evidence? That's pretty weak for an entity that's supposed to be almighty.

This is a logic challenge and we are no where finished yet. The point re existance has been concluded ie there is only one option unless you can provide an alternative?

You have not come close to proving that God exists.

I agree.

Glad we agree on something.

Would you being willing to do what it takes? Are you committed to finding out?

Here you are suddenly changing your tune.

When Kylie wants to prove that Kylie exists, it is up to Kylie to perform whatever actions are necessary to prove that Kylie exists.

But when God wants me to believe in him, now I have to do all the work? He can do the work himself. You wouldn't accept it if I said that the only way for me to convince you that I exist was for you to fly yourself over here at your own expense, and yet you expect me to do that when it comes to God.

How did you come to this conclusion?

I can prove to you that I have a dragon in my backyard. All you have to do is decide that I am telling the truth, and then you will be completely convinced and will know for a fact that I have a dragon in my backyard.

Does that sound like a good argument to you? No? Then why are you using the same basic argument to get me to believe in God.

What all sorts of proof are these?

It's the same "proof" that you are using. The only difference is what they have claimed to have proved by using it - the reasoning behind it is still weak.

Actually i havent asked that of you. I have directed many questions at you though.

Yes you have. You've said that the way to get proof is to open your heart. Opening your heart can never give objective fact, only subjective opinion.

Why can a scientist verify a religious experience but how ever a religious person cannot?

Wait, when has a scientist ever verified a religious experience? Scientists can say that someone had a religious experience, but they can't verify that what they experienced actually was god.

That is not what i said and you are putting words into my mouth. What you did explain was an example of a category error. Please show me where i made one?

You said that if I opened my heart I would find the proof. Now either this works for everything, in which case I can open my heart and find proof that one plus one equals red, or it only applies to certain things, in which case I have to ask how you can determine if something can be proved by opening your heart.

Well if you didnt have faith i existed you wouldnt come and shake me by the shoulders. What motivation would you have to do so? Having faith is the first step to seeking, you would not do so if you doubted?

Careful, you are mixing things around. I would come and shake you by the shoulders to prove MY existence. Now you are talking as though I would have to shake you by the shoulders to prove YOUR existence.

Lets consider the nature of God. Why is it a rubbish way?

I was quite clear. Proving things by asking people to just accept it is a rubbish way of proving things.

Seriously, if you don't understand why that is, then I'm not sure you are capable of having a discussion about this.

You are putting words into my mouth...

No, I am not putting words into your mouth. You have literally been making the argument that proof of God can be found by just letting yourself be convinced of it.

You said, "To get the proof we must follow the christian method ie open your heart to Jesus, confess your sins and acknowledge that He is your saviour. For this to work you must have complete trust that Jesus is who He says He is and you must humble your self.

Once we have 100% faith then we get a result. You will feel the presence of God and He can be known through the Holy Spirit."

This is no different to me saying, "To get the proof that there is a dragon in my backyard, we must follow the Dragon method ie open your heart to the dragon, confess your sins of doubting the Dragon and acknowledge that the Dragon is your saviour. For this to work you must have complete trust that the Dragon is who He says He is and you must humble your self. Once we have 100% faith then we get a result. You will feel the presence of the Dragon and He can be known through the Dragon Spirit."

...but while we are here. Would that also apply to @VirOptimus?

Optimus - "The ToE just is."

How about what you said below?

Kylie - "The only rational thing he can do is to accept that the people who have studied the idea in depth and who have much greater knowledge about the idea than he has are much more likely to get accurate information and conclusions."

The theory of evolution has a great deal of supporting evidence that is free for anyone to go and check for themselves. It has been tested and validated countless times.

How is that so?

The theory of evolution is used in pretty much every field of biology.

That implies a catalyst.

In what way does having an idea require a catalyst? In what way does the concept of a catalyst even apply to having an idea?

How is evolution a thing used to help perform a job ie you ellude to a task? (.eg a piece of work to be done or undertaken.)

Biologists use the theory of evolution to understand how an infection bacteria responds when exposed to antibiotics.

Why couldnt God be this catalyst?

Catalyst for what? Having the idea?

Haha mouth faires. When i got my wisdom teeth pulled out, i knew it was my wisdom teeth. I did not need a xray to prove that and neither did he, he poked around and came to that conclusion based on my painful reaction - so did i. He did xray to see how deep the roots were and to recommend surgery. Now would i go to him if i knew he was an unfit dentist? If i did not know his reputation or experience his service, then how would it not be trust based on no evidence?

Irrelevant. He still reached that conclusion on evidence. And no, if you were someone who believed in mouth fairies, then you wouldn't go to him. You'd probably say something like, "How can he be a good dentist when he doesn't even know about the mouth fairies?"

You are free to do so. Haha. If someone steals a car, do i need to be a policeman or a lawmaker to know that is a crime? Dont get too excited! Cheers

What are you going on about? You've said that we can dismiss someone who claims to be an authority simply because accepting their word would count as the appeal to authority fallacy.

Since you are presenting me with arguments to support your position, you are presenting yourself as more of an expert on your position than I am. As such, I must reject everything you say since if I don't, I will be committing an appeal to Authority fallacy.

 

[xianghua]

Except that they didn't. The bicycle was created completely independent of the car, as was the airplane.

you got my point. the same is true for animals.

 

[xianghua]

In other words, people who know a lot more about this topic than you or me have said that there are several possible explanations.

who said they dont? even in my OP i said how evolutionists "solve" such a problem. my point is that by such explanation anything is possible and therefore evolution isnt sicentific since we cant test it.

Trilobites died out 252 million years ago

the same was suppose to be true for the coelacanth. and yet we found such a fish alive today. so there is no problem for evolution if we will find tomorrow a trilobites with a dino.

 

[xianghua]

No, you claimed that, based on false understandings of a paper.
Then people have corrected you, which you ignored and then repeated your false claim.

incorrect but you are wlecome to believe it.

 

[VirOptimus]

you got my point. the same is true for animals.

Support this statement with data and evidence.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

incorrect but you are wlecome to believe it.

Are you seriously denying that you have been corrected hundreds, if not thousands, of times?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

you got my point. the same is true for animals.

Except it isn't.

 

[Kylie]

who said they dont? even in my OP i said how evolutionists "solve" such a problem. my point is that by such explanation anything is possible and therefore evolution isnt sicentific since we cant test it.

And your point is WRONG. You have been told this many times. Evolution can not explain ANYTHING.

the same was suppose to be true for the coelacanth. and yet we found such a fish alive today. so there is no problem for evolution if we will find tomorrow a trilobites with a dino.

Trilobites were one of the most common life forms ever. There are literally millions of fossils, and they had many different species. Even if 90% of them were wiped out, then there would still be fossils.

According to every shred of evidence we have, trilobites and dinosaurs did not live together.

Are you going to again invoke your imaginings as evidence?

 

[Kylie]

you got my point. the same is true for animals.

Please show me valid scientific evidence to support your claim that mammals were made separately from all other life forms.

 

[Kylie]

incorrect but you are wlecome to believe it.

No, he is very much correct. You have been told several times why your claims are wrong, and you still continue to make the same points refuted a thousand times. At this point, you are pretty much being intellectually dishonest.

 

[pitabread]

nevermind...

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No, he is very much correct. You have been told several times why your claims are wrong, and you still continue to make the same points refuted a thousand times. At this point, you are pretty much being intellectually dishonest.

At this point? Do you remember a point where he wasn't intellectually dishonest?

 

[xianghua]

Support this statement with data and evidence.

evidence that nature was designed?

 

[xianghua]

Are you seriously denying that you have been corrected hundreds, if not thousands, of times?

you mean millions of times, or maybe billions?

 

[xianghua]

And your point is WRONG. You have been told this many times. Evolution can not explain ANYTHING.

i just showed that it can. at least about the fossil record.

Even if 90% of them were wiped out, then there would still be fossils.

but if 99.% (or more if you want since its actually happened in reality) of them were wiped out then we got a similar situation of the coelacanth case. and as we seen: evolution has no problem to explain it.

 

[xianghua]

Please show me valid scientific evidence to support your claim that mammals were made separately from all other life forms.

lets start with ic systems. do you agree that a motion system need at least several parts for its minimal function?

 

[Speedwell]

lets start with ic systems. do you agree that a motion system need at least several parts for its minimal function?

Sure. And the parallel evolution of the components of complex systems is well evidenced and understood.

You go on as if the evolution of a system of several parts is impossible, something that evolution has trouble explaining.

It isn't.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Please show me valid scientific evidence to support your claim that mammals were made separately from all other life forms.

Please show me valid scientific evidence to support the belief that life that reproduces by binary fission has anything to do with life that reproduces by giving live birth to its offspring????