Blog debate : Proof of Evolution

Thistlethorn · Dec 4, 2009

brinny said:
then why is it not called a fact? Is anything in science considered fact?

There's the fact of evolution and then there's the theory of evolution. Two different things.

Fact of evolution: Organisms evolve.

Theory of evolution: A model showing why and how organisms evolve.

Psudopod · Dec 4, 2009

then why is it not called a fact? Is anything in science considered fact?

Facts are things like "the sky is blue" or "the frequency of alleles changes over time". Theories, like rayleigh scattering or the theory of evolution explain these facts. How much they explain how many valid predictions they make on them show our level of confidence in them.

Hespera · Dec 4, 2009

brinny said:
then why is it not called a fact? Is anything in science considered fact?

I have no idea what you were referring to when you said "it would be a start". Prease exprian!

As to fact, dont listen to coder. Here is how it works.

In science, a person can say "it is a fact that these are the data points that i got"

After that, one does not talk about facts. You cant.

MAYBE evolution is a fact; i think it is. But we, being fallible humans, can never ever prove that it is. The only proof possible would be to prove that it is NOT a fact. The chances of that are vanishingly small.

I think part of the appeal of religion is that it gives the appearance of providing facts, truths, something utterly solid and reliable.

It doesnt' it provides merely the illusion of that. (for all of the religions except the one true one?)

CoderHead · Dec 4, 2009

Hespera said:
As to fact, dont listen to coder.

Wait, what?

Hespera said:
MAYBE evolution is a fact; i think it is.

So we agree. You and I are both saying that evolution (not the "Theory of Evolution") is a fact. Evolution happens, it's a fact.

Hespera · Dec 4, 2009

CoderHead said:
Wait, what?

So we agree. You and I are both saying that evolution (not the "Theory of Evolution") is a fact. Evolution happens, it's a fact.

No we dont agree. Did you read my post?

Among other things i said I THINK ToE is a fact.

That is very different from saying it IS.

If i went into a seminar and said "I think these are my data points"
I would be subject to laughter.

if i said and therefor the theory based on my data is a FACT, i would look like a complete idiot.

Thistlethorn · Dec 4, 2009

Hespera said:
No we dont agree. Did you read my post?

Among other things i said I THINK ToE is a fact.

That is very different from saying it IS.

If i went into a seminar and said "I think these are my data points"
I would be subject to laughter.

if i said and therefor the theory based on my data is a FACT, i would look like a complete idiot.

Hespera, evolution is observation. It's a fact. The theory of evolution isn't a fact, but a model explaining the observation. I think you're simply misunderstanding each other.

Agonaces of Susa · Dec 4, 2009

It is a fact that evolution is observed to be a myth.

thaumaturgy · Dec 4, 2009

brinny said:
Here's the bottom line spoken by Dawkins himself:

Science doesn't know.

and here's my take on those not knowing limitations: Science, it appears, is limited. It cannot explain the un-fathomable, the inexplicable, and is based on the limited perceptions of flawed man. It can go no further, and never has, in the history of mankind, it has not. Even a child can see the night sky and perceive there are phenomena bigger than they are. SOMETHING had to put all of it in place. SOMETHING BIGGER than that child. Even a child can sense that there is something inexplicable happening when they are happy, sad, in awe of something they canot explain. Even a child senses there is an inexplicable part of them that is the well spring of their emotions and that there's a part of them that is as unique as their thumb print, and that there is no one as unique as them and never will be. Even a child knows the difference between feeling loved and hated or despised. Even a child knows there is a reason for that. And even a child senses that the reason we soooo need to be loved, and why we respond to love is because there is a Being Who DOES love us, and even a child knows that THAT is what makes life worth living.

Science, in its current way of presenting itself has the audacity to, although it cannot explain the inexplicable, says, in essence, "go over there and play with your toys...we don't talk about such things"......same thing. Reminds me of Kay in the Snow Queen story. He was encased in an icy world and was compelled to mechanically form chards of icy triangles non-stop.

Scioence, in its purest form, is full of wonder at the inexplicable, for science would recognize its limitations and realize there is so much further to go, and out of curiousity, continue on....not throw out the inexplicable, like the God so many believe in, Who is inexplicable, and science, honestly must recognize this, and explore those multitudes of inexplicable components that make up the human psyche that connects with an inexplicable God, instead of saying "go over there and play withy your toys..we don't talk about such things".

It would be a start.

Brinny,
Please understand that science isn't saying "God does NOT exist!" Science, when done properly says nothing about God's existence.The key here is not that someone is telling poor Bil O'Reilly he can't think about God, it's that he can't just assume that if there's a gap in science that he can therefore shove in his particular interpretation of the Judeo-Christian God.

The fact is there are numerous gods available for the job and none of them provide an explicable mechanism by which we can use the information to further the science.

That's the key point. Sure there's lots of wonderful amazing things in nature! No one, least of all scientists, denies that! But the amazing parts don't necessarily have to be YOUR particular god or goddess or supernatural being.

They are "unknowns". You may feel with all your heart that you "know" this being. And for that I am happy for you. I "know" my dog, Aleister Growley, loves me. I don't know how I would "prove" that to you. But I "feel it" strongly.

That is what religion does, it fills in our gaps and gives some a feeling or sense of happiness and security. But it isn't a mechanism of explanation that science can use.

If you open that door then you have basically thrown out one of the most important rules that makes science work as well as it has: you allow people to assume un-explained mechanisms as a final answer.

Why didn't my reaction work well in the lab yesterday? Well, perhaps I had angered God in the morning and he decided to disallow thermodynamics at my lab bench. Better get to prayin' and maybe the exact same set of circumstances will result in a completely different result!

Do you see how that is corrosive to science?

NOT that religion is "bad" or science is "anti-religion", but religion has no place in science. Even the stuff we don't know yet. The key word there is "yet".

Maybe it is God! Who knows? But we have to prove God first and the "model" God's actions such that we can utilize the "God Hypothesis" in science to make our models work consistently and understandably.

If Bill O'Reilly wants god in the science class room then he better be OK with that god being: Allah, Aharu Mazda, Zeus, Yahweh, Odin...etc etc etc etc etc etc etc....

Thistlethorn · Dec 4, 2009

Agonaces of Susa said:
It is a fact that evolution is observed to be a myth.

No, that would be a lie. Another clear violation of the ninth.

Agonaces of Susa · Dec 4, 2009

Thistlethorn said:
No, that would be a lie. Another clear violation of the ninth.

That's a lie. Honesty has never been the virtue of Darwinists.

In fact, Darwinists are masters of deliberate treachery, trickery, and deception.

sandwiches · Dec 4, 2009

Hespera said:
No we dont agree. Did you read my post?

Among other things i said I THINK ToE is a fact.

That is very different from saying it IS.

If i went into a seminar and said "I think these are my data points"
I would be subject to laughter.

if i said and therefor the theory based on my data is a FACT, i would look like a complete idiot.

I have to agree with everyone else here, Hespera. A fact would be saying "the sky is blue." That's a fact. Now, why or how is the sky blue would be the "Theory of the Blue Sky" or whatever.

So, evolution as the change in allele frequency is a fact. That can be readily observed. Why or how it happens is where the Theory of Evolution comes in.

sandwiches · Dec 4, 2009

Agonaces of Susa said:
That's a lie. Honesty has never been the virtue of Darwinists.

In fact, Darwinists are masters of deliberate treachery, trickery, and deception.

Why do you think these insidious Darwinists lie and propagate the idea of evolution?

brinny · Dec 4, 2009

CoderHead said:
Wait, what?

So we agree. You and I are both saying that evolution (not the "Theory of Evolution") is a fact. Evolution happens, it's a fact.

Is that your final answer? That evolution is a fact? Are you sure you wanna say that?

sandwiches · Dec 4, 2009

brinny said:
Is that your final answer? That evolution is a fact? Are you sure you wanna say that?

Do you understand what we mean when we say fact?

If not, read this and it will hopefully be cleared up a little: Fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

brinny · Dec 4, 2009

Originally Posted by brinny
Here's the bottom line spoken by Dawkins himself:

Science doesn't know.

and here's my take on those not knowing limitations: Science, it appears, is limited. It cannot explain the un-fathomable, the inexplicable, and is based on the limited perceptions of flawed man. It can go no further, and never has, in the history of mankind, it has not. Even a child can see the night sky and perceive there are phenomena bigger than they are. SOMETHING had to put all of it in place. SOMETHING BIGGER than that child. Even a child can sense that there is something inexplicable happening when they are happy, sad, in awe of something they canot explain. Even a child senses there is an inexplicable part of them that is the well spring of their emotions and that there's a part of them that is as unique as their thumb print, and that there is no one as unique as them and never will be. Even a child knows the difference between feeling loved and hated or despised. Even a child knows there is a reason for that. And even a child senses that the reason we soooo need to be loved, and why we respond to love is because there is a Being Who DOES love us, and even a child knows that THAT is what makes life worth living.

Science, in its current way of presenting itself has the audacity to, although it cannot explain the inexplicable, says, in essence, "go over there and play with your toys...we don't talk about such things"......same thing. Reminds me of Kay in the Snow Queen story. He was encased in an icy world and was compelled to mechanically form chards of icy triangles non-stop.

Scioence, in its purest form, is full of wonder at the inexplicable, for science would recognize its limitations and realize there is so much further to go, and out of curiousity, continue on....not throw out the inexplicable, like the God so many believe in, Who is inexplicable, and science, honestly must recognize this, and explore those multitudes of inexplicable components that make up the human psyche that connects with an inexplicable God, instead of saying "go over there and play withy your toys..we don't talk about such things".

It would be a start.

thaumaturgy said:
Brinny,
Please understand that science isn't saying "God does NOT exist!" Science, when done properly says nothing about God's existence.The key here is not that someone is telling poor Bil O'Reilly he can't think about God, it's that he can't just assume that if there's a gap in science that he can therefore shove in his particular interpretation of the Judeo-Christian God.

The fact is there are numerous gods available for the job and none of them provide an explicable mechanism by which we can use the information to further the science.

That's the key point. Sure there's lots of wonderful amazing things in nature! No one, least of all scientists, denies that! But the amazing parts don't necessarily have to be YOUR particular god or goddess or supernatural being.

They are "unknowns". You may feel with all your heart that you "know" this being. And for that I am happy for you. I "know" my dog, Aleister Growley, loves me. I don't know how I would "prove" that to you. But I "feel it" strongly.

That is what religion does, it fills in our gaps and gives some a feeling or sense of happiness and security. But it isn't a mechanism of explanation that science can use.

If you open that door then you have basically thrown out one of the most important rules that makes science work as well as it has: you allow people to assume un-explained mechanisms as a final answer.

Why didn't my reaction work well in the lab yesterday? Well, perhaps I had angered God in the morning and he decided to disallow thermodynamics at my lab bench. Better get to prayin' and maybe the exact same set of circumstances will result in a completely different result!

Do you see how that is corrosive to science?

NOT that religion is "bad" or science is "anti-religion", but religion has no place in science. Even the stuff we don't know yet. The key word there is "yet".

Maybe it is God! Who knows? But we have to prove God first and the "model" God's actions such that we can utilize the "God Hypothesis" in science to make our models work consistently and understandably.

If Bill O'Reilly wants god in the science class room then he better be OK with that god being: Allah, Aharu Mazda, Zeus, Yahweh, Odin...etc etc etc etc etc etc etc....

How does one put something inexplicable under a microscope, something that is not visible to the human eye, beause it is beyond our senses? How do limited human beings, who are so fallible and weak that they die, take an eon of time, or anything that is beyond our understanding, and put it under a tinker toy, of sorts, like a microscope?

CoderHead · Dec 4, 2009

brinny said:
Is that your final answer? That evolution is a fact? Are you sure you wanna say that?

Yep.

brinny · Dec 4, 2009

Originally Posted by brinny
Is that your final answer? That evolution is a fact? Are you sure you wanna say that?

CoderHead said:
Yep.

and says it wif a smile haha

sandwiches · Dec 4, 2009

brinny said:
How does one put something inexplicable under a microscope, something that is not visible to the human eye, beause it is beyond our senses? How do limited human beings, who are so fallible and weak that they die, take an eon of time, or anything that is beyond our understanding, and put it under a tinker toy, of sorts, like a microscope?

You're absolutely right in that if something is beyond our senses, we can't analyze it, study it, or etc. However, I have to ask you: if your god is beyond our senses, how can you know it exists?

Hespera · Dec 4, 2009

Agonaces of Susa said:
That's a lie. Honesty has never been the virtue of Darwinists.

In fact, Darwinists are masters of deliberate treachery, trickery, and deception.

there is always the ad hom against a group that doesnt even exist.

what a groaner.

Hespera · Dec 4, 2009

sandwiches said:
I have to agree with everyone else here, Hespera. A fact would be saying "the sky is blue." That's a fact. Now, why or how is the sky blue would be the "Theory of the Blue Sky" or whatever.

So, evolution as the change in allele frequency is a fact. That can be readily observed. Why or how it happens is where the Theory of Evolution comes in.

well dwanu argue definitions. if i did we could argue whether the sky is in (fact) blue.

Blog debate : Proof of Evolution

Defeated dad.

Godspeed, Spacebat

Junior Member

Knee Dragger

Junior Member

Defeated dad.

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.

Well-Known Member

Defeated dad.

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

Knee Dragger

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Junior Member

Junior Member

Similar threads