The Demise of Evolution

[OldWiseGuy]

It's amazing how so many conservative Christians are unfamiliar with basic Biblical scholarship.

The bible isn't a Jenga game.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What immoral behaviours and immoral by whose measure?

Your garden variety immoral behaviors as generally held by most.

Let me help you,

Jaywalking: Illegal but not immoral.

Pushing someone in front of a bus: Immoral (and illegal).

 

[Kylie]

Already answered that. If it looks and functions like it was designed it probably was.

So, given that you said in post 272 that rocks have design, what exactly does it mean to "look and function like it was designed"?

I mean, in what way would rocks look and function differently if they WEREN'T designed?

 

[Lazarus Long]

Your garden variety immoral behaviors as generally held by most.

Let me help you,

Jaywalking: Illegal but not immoral.

Pushing someone in front of a bus: Immoral (and illegal).

So you stopped pushing people in front of a bus?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So, given that you said in post 272 that rocks have design, what exactly does it mean to "look and function like it was designed"?

I mean, in what way would rocks look and function differently if they WEREN'T designed?

Sorry, I should have used the term rock instead of rocks. Using concrete as an example; a concrete building has design, but if it is bombed to rubble in a war the original design is lost. Same with common rocks lying around. They were once part of carefully designed structures before various cataclysms reduced them to boulders, rocks, pebbles, and sand.

 

[roman2819]

But all of the evidence out there supports evolution. There is no scientific evidence for creationism. How do you explain that?

There is no scientific proof of how life began, is there?

So must science prove everything before you believe? Go figure and be free to voice your thoghts. I look forward to reading them.

PS I say scientific proof of how life began, not theories, and not some lab experiments.

 

[roman2819]

To those who claim to believe in science only., this is my question :

There is no scientific proof of how life began, is there?

So must science prove everything before you believe? Go figure and be free to voice your thoghts. I look forward to reading them.

PS I say scientific proof of how life began, not theories, and not some lab experiments.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Perhaps not. At he very least you do not seem to be able to come up with a test for them.

Already covered that. The test is, do they perform as advertised. Happily they pass with flying colors.

Is there evidence that the ToE is falsifiable?

 

[roman2819]

And the scientific processes you use to come to these conclusions are?

Is there scientific proof of how life began? And yet we are here, regardless of what science say.

2 questions:

Must we insist that science prove everything before we believe?

And what do you think is next question..... Hint: It is pertaining to the millions of lifeforms on earth

 

[Yttrium]

To those who claim to believe in science only., this is my question :

I don't think there are any such people here. Even atheists will be flexible on the existing scientific theories.

There is no scientific proof of how life began, is there?

Correct. There's currently no real scientific theory of how life began either.

So must science prove everything before you believe? Go figure and be free to voice your thoghts. I look forward to reading them.

Science doesn't really go about proving things, outside of mathematics. Science forms theories to explain what we see in nature, based on the known evidence. Our theories are improved or replaced as new evidence becomes available, but they aren't proofs. One can have philosophical beliefs based on the science, but no such beliefs are required to accept the theories as the most likely current explanations.

 

[Speedwell]

Already covered that. The test is, do they perform as advertised. Happily they pass with flying colors.

Is there evidence that the ToE is falsifiable?

All scientific theories are falsifiable. That is one of the epistemological requirements of being a scientific theory.

 

[Speedwell]

To those who claim to believe in science only., this is my question :

There is no scientific proof of how life began, is there?

So must science prove everything before you believe? Go figure and be free to voice your thoghts. I look forward to reading them.

PS I say scientific proof of how life began, not theories, and not some lab experiments.

"Proof" is a process of axiomatic formal systems like mathematics which rely on deductive logic. Science, on the other hand, is based on inductive logic which does not result in "proof." Scientific conclusions (theories) are held as true provisionally only so long as they are confirmed by empirical evidence. If any evidence is discovered which contradicts them, they must be altered or abandoned.

 

[pitabread]

PS I say scientific proof of how life began, not theories, and not some lab experiments.

Science doesn't deal in absolute proof.

Science deals in accumulated evidence and forms conclusions based on the relative strength of that evidence.

Insofar as the origin of life research goes, I'm not sure why you would rule out scientific theory and lab experiments. Demanding scientific "proof" for something then immediately saying they can't use science to do that is just contradictory.

 

[Ophiolite]

To those who claim to believe in science only., this is my question :

There is no scientific proof of how life began, is there?

Of course not. Speedwell has already dealt with this. Science doesn't deal in proofs. It builds explanations based upon observation and testing.

So must science prove everything before you believe?

I don't believe anything. Belief is a grossly over-rated irrelevance and a lazy indulgence for those uncomfortable with uncertainty.

Science must demonstrate a well constructed theory based upon detailed observation, extensive analysis, critical examination, ongoing peer review and oft-replicated testing. Then I shall incline to accept that as the most practical current explanation for whatever phenomenon is being addressed. (Obviously for such minor matters as to what causes the noises in my attic I do not call in a University science department, but I do employ scientific principles to distinguish between rodents, birds, bats, loose slates, wind, unsecured plumbing, squatters and Aunt Matilda.)

PS I say scientific proof of how life began, not theories, and not some lab experiments.

I think you have already been told this, but you haven't taken it on board yet. Theories are as good as it gets in science - and that is very good indeed. A scientific theory is not remotely like the "theory" raised in casual conversation. A theory is based on the work of hundreds and thousands of scientists. (Newton famously remarked "If I have seen further it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.) And the theory, once proposed (after extensive critiquing by its author) is then scrutinised by many hundreds more. In some cases, thousands and tens of thousands. If you cannot accept fact I sincerely recommend you simply avoid anything to do with science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no scientific proof of how life began, is there?

So must science prove everything before you believe? Go figure and be free to voice your thoghts. I look forward to reading them.

PS I say scientific proof of how life began, not theories, and not some lab experiments.

You misuse terminology. Science does not "prove" anything. There is scientific evidence for abiogenesis but not enough to get it beyond the hypothetical stage yet.

And also you do not not know what a theory is either. Gravity is a theory too, just like evolution. By any reasonable standards both have been "proven". It is very hard for someone to argue against science when they do not even understand what they should have learned in high school. Disparaging 'theories' is the same as disparaging reality.

So would you like to go over the basics first? That knowledge will make you a better debater.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is there scientific proof of how life began? And yet we are here, regardless of what science say.

2 questions:

Must we insist that science prove everything before we believe?

And what do you think is next question..... Hint: It is pertaining to the millions of lifeforms on earth

What is required for a rational belief is evidence. And it is a fairly simply concept to understand. There is evidence for abiogenesis. Not enough to make it a theory yet since there are some important unanswered questions. There is no scientific evidence for a creator of any sort. There does not appear to be any reliable evidence for a creator.

You throw around the word "prove" inappropriately. By the legal standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" there is "proof" for evolution. But scientists have to keep an open mind. They have found that if someone takes anything as absolutely proven that that is a hindrance to further learning. Keeping an open mind allows them to accept new answers when the evidence goes against their personal beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Already covered that. The test is, do they perform as advertised. Happily they pass with flying colors.

Is there evidence that the ToE is falsifiable?

Sorry, you failed in your attempt to test your ideas. You could not even properly define your claims. In fact it appears that you are not being honest right now.

A proper test has to have the possibility of failure. And you cannot base your test upon the perfromance of other ideas. If your idea has any merit it must pass or fail the test based upon how it does in the test.

For example one cannot test creationism by trying to get evolution to fail. Even if one succeeded that would only be evidence against evolution and not for creationism. In fact without a proper test for one's ideas one cannot have any evidence for them. All one has without evidence are ad hoc explanations and confirmation bias. Those are convincing only to those that have already drank the Kool-Aid.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sorry, you failed in your attempt to test your ideas. You could not even properly define your claims. In fact it appears that you are not being honest right now.

A proper test has to have the possibility of failure. And you cannot base your test upon the perfromance of other ideas. If your idea has any merit it must pass or fail the test based upon how it does in the test.

For example one cannot test creationism by trying to get evolution to fail. Even if one succeeded that would only be evidence against evolution and not for creationism. In fact without a proper test for one's ideas one cannot have any evidence for them. All one has without evidence are ad hoc explanations and confirmation bias. Those are convincing only to those that have already drank the Kool-Aid.

I directed the question to the commandments, away from creation.

One can fail at being honest, but that doesn't mean that honesty itself has failed. So there can be some confusion.

 

[Speedwell]

I directed the question to the commandments, away from creation.

One can fail at being honest, but that doesn't mean that honesty itself has failed. So there can be some confusion.

How would you test "honesty itself?"

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How would you test "honesty itself?"

Get a bunch of dishonest people to become honest and observe the results over time.