To Believers, Is This Evidence For Satan?

jamesbond007 said:

The link explains, "list of textbooks that use Ernst Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings, which since the 19th century have been used to support the hypothesis of universal common ancestry." Thus, stick to just common ancestor and tree of life instead of evolution. It's fallacy of slothful induction.

Click to expand...

That was a lie, also. Both sites I checked did not use the drawings support common descent; quite the opposite, they used the drawings to debunk Haeckel's arguments, as I showed you.

They just lied to you. That, unfortunately, is how most (not all) of those sites operate.

Brightmoon said:

I’ve got a biology degree ... Evolution is a fact.

Click to expand...

I suppose if you were using "fact" in a colloquial sense to express your confidence, then fine. But, given you were touting your biology degree, I'd expect a precise use of terms. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Just a pet peeve of mine.

jamesbond007 said:

Evolution is simply overthrown if one does not believe in it. There is no practical use for it. If someone finds how our limbs develop, then it should be something that could stand on its own. It doesn't mean that it applies to common ancestor or how a species is evolving into another species.

There I just overthrew evolution. Just don't use it in science. Ignore it like many people ignore Satan. Get lost, Satan.

Click to expand...

Um, what? I use evolution in science because it explains and accurately predicts a wide range of data in very useful ways. Until somebody offers an alternative that does a better job, scientists will continue to use it.

Resha Caner said:

I suppose if you were using "fact" in a colloquial sense to express your confidence, then fine. But, given you were touting your biology degree, I'd expect a precise use of terms. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Just a pet peeve of mine.

Click to expand...

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

sfs said:

Until somebody offers an alternative that does a better job, scientists will continue to use it.

Click to expand...

Sorry. Maybe Thursday is pet peeve day for me.

Granted that is what would have to happen, and I'm sure many credible scientists would love to have their name etched in marble for doing such a thing ... but I don't believe anyone is actually putting any serious effort into alternatives. So, to me it sounds like an inane statement. Sorta like, "I plan to keep breathing until someone finds an alternative."

sfs said:

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

Click to expand...

Then you're using the term differently than I do in my scientific endeavors.

Brightmoon said:

Maybe if your friend had been a life scientist instead of just your buddy you would have understood that he was correct. Dinosaurs had bones with air sacs long before birds evolved. Dinosaurs had feathers before birds evolved , dinosaurs had beaks long before birds evolved. Birds have reptilian skin with scales on their feet . They’ve also got claws and for raptors like eagles and owls , those claws can kill. Then there is the theropod to bird fossil record which is much more extensive than most laymen realise. Soft tissue reconstruction from fossils that demonstrate that some Dino cartilage was identical to an ostrich’s. The closest living relatives to birds are crocodilians. There’s no legitimate reason to reject birds evolving from dinosaurs or to reject the fact that birds are a type of warm blooded reptile. Creationists think their dislike of a fact somehow disproves it.

Having said all that . An erroneous understanding of nature is not evidence for Satan

Click to expand...

I wonder how a cold blooded creature developed a highly sophisticated closed loop temperature control system? How many trillions of failed attempts would happen prior to one success? Where are evolution's mistakes across every "evolutionary" event? How come the Cambrian explosion came about over a miniscule period of 10 million years? How did egg laying creaatures develop a highly sophisticated milk feeding system? How about symbiosis? Creatures that did not exist were required for the propagation of some plant life. Etc Etc Etc. Please. Evolution is a fallacy, propagated by the Antichrist world system to blind people to the reality of God. Check out Professor James Tour. He's a leading scientist, researcher, inventor and evangelist.

Resha Caner said:

Granted that is what would have to happen, and I'm sure many credible scientists would love to have their name etched in marble for doing such a thing ... but I don't believe anyone is actually putting any serious effort into alternatives. So, to me it sounds like an inane statement. Sorta like, "I plan to keep breathing until someone finds an alternative."

Click to expand...

Well, as a response to people who claim that there is an alternative to breathing I think it's quite reasonable. It's true that creationists are not putting any effort into an alternative to evolution -- what should we conclude about the validity of their claim, then?

Resha Caner said:

Then you're using the term differently than I do in my scientific endeavors.

Click to expand...

What are you scientific endeavors, and when in science do you use the word 'fact'? It's not a term of art in science and certainly has no formal definition. As far as I can tell, 'fact' means a statement about reality that we have enough confidence in that we can treat it as true. What other usage have you seen?

sfs said:

What are you scientific endeavors, and when in science do you use the word 'fact'? It's not a term of art in science and certainly has no formal definition. As far as I can tell, 'fact' means a statement about reality that we have enough confidence in that we can treat it as true. What other usage have you seen?

Click to expand...

My particular endeavors involve nonlinear dynamic systems with respect to mechanics.

A fact is something accepted without warrant, and no theory ever fits that description. As an example: a fact is that the baseball fell to the ground. Claiming gravity is the cause does not make gravity a fact. Gravity is warranted by the mathematical derivations underlying Newtonian mechanics (or Einsteinian mechanics depending on the situation) along with the correlated observations. And gravity will always be warranted by those mathematics even though a scientist's confidence in gravity may be extremely high such that the mathematics are rarely ever referenced.

sfs said:

It's true that creationists are not putting any effort into an alternative to evolution.

Click to expand...

I was referring to mainstream biology. Creationists put a lot of effort into trying to invent an alternative. Unfortunately all those I'm aware of are barking up the wrong tree.

Resha Caner said:

My particular endeavors involve nonlinear dynamic systems with respect to mechanics.

Click to expand...

When have you used your definition of 'fact' in your scientific work?

Resha Caner said:

A fact is something accepted without warrant, and no theory ever fits that description. As an example: a fact is that the baseball fell to the ground.

Click to expand...

I find your explanation incomprehensible. A baseball falling to the ground is a fact if and only if a baseball actually fell and you have some way of knowing about. If you know about it, the fact is warranted by observation or other empirical data.

Resha Caner said:

Creationists put a lot of effort into trying to invent an alternative.

Click to expand...

Really? What creationists are actually trying to explain data with a creationist model? Todd Wood has tried it a bit, and maybe what's his name, the hydroplate guy, but it's pretty thin pickings.

sfs said:

When have you used your definition of 'fact' in your scientific work?

Click to expand...

Hmm. It's usually at this point when biologists tell me engineering isn't "real science", but rather "applied science". So do you want me to separate my daily engineering work from my published work in giving you an answer?

sfs said:

I find your explanation incomprehensible. A baseball falling to the ground is a fact if and only if a baseball actually fell and you have some way of knowing about. If you know about it, the fact is warranted by observation or other empirical data.

Click to expand...

That's understandable given this seems to be new to you. It may take some time. The part you seem to have missed was "accepted without warrant". I will accept without the need of following the scientific method that baseballs fall to the ground ... and most people do ... maybe you're an exception. I will not accept gravity without warrant. That I now accept gravity does not transform it into a fact.

The colloquial use of the term "fact" holds up a big sign that shouts, "I'm not open to discussing this!" Is that really the message you want to send?

Granted Wikipedia is a poor source to quote, but we'll start there and see how much you're going to require me to back up what I say ... how long I feel like arguing about it.

Fact: "In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts." What I'm highlighting here is that they contrast fact and theory as 2 different things. Wikipedia references Barry Gower Scientific Method: A Historical and Philosophical Introduction. Routledge, 1997 for that statement.

sfs said:

Really? What creationists are actually trying to explain data with a creationist model? Todd Wood has tried it a bit, and maybe what's his name, the hydroplate guy, but it's pretty thin pickings.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but this reply just sounds argumentative. I give no credence to any of the popular creationist tropes, so I'm not going to argue about them.

Do you even remember who I am? We've had this discussion before - what would constitute a legitimate scientific investigation into alternatives to evolution and some past attempts that - though they were falsified - had some merit.

Resha Caner said:

I suppose if you were using "fact" in a colloquial sense to express your confidence, then fine. But, given you were touting your biology degree, I'd expect a precise use of terms. Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

Click to expand...

No, that's wrong. Evolution is an observed phenomenon. A change in allele frequency in a population over time. We see that constantly. Occasionally, we see the evolution of a new species.

Creationists often confuse the observed phenomenon with the theory that explains it, or with agencies of evolution like natural selection, or with consequences of evolution like common descent. This causes no end of problems for them, when they try to discuss it.

The Barbarian said:

Creationists often confuse the observed phenomenon with the theory that explains it.

Click to expand...

That is literally the defined difference between fact and theory (see post #75). I understand when evolutionists are concerned about the way conflated terms muddy the waters (such as the common conflation between hypothesis and theory - people saying "it's just a theory"). And I'll support you when you speak out against such conflation. So to then turn and use the conflation of fact and theory to somehow imply your theory is true is unacceptable.

This is exactly the example I was leading up to. A change in allele frequency is the fact. Evolution is the theory you use to explain that fact.

Resha Caner said:

That is literally the defined difference between fact and theory (see post #75). I understand when evolutionists are concerned about the way conflated terms muddy the waters (such as the common conflation between hypothesis and theory - people saying "it's just a theory"). And I'll support you when you speak out against such conflation. So to then turn and use the conflation of fact and theory to somehow imply your theory is true is unacceptable.

Click to expand...

I don't know of anyone who does that.

This is exactly the example I was leading up to. A change in allele frequency is the fact.

Click to expand...

That's evolution. By definition.

Evolution is the theory you use to explain that fact.

Click to expand...

No, that's wrong. Evolution isn't a theory. Gravity isn't a theory. These are observed phenomena. Gravitational theory and evolutionary theory explain them. So the fact of evolution is not the same thing as the inference of universal common descent, just as the observation that an apple falls from a tree to the ground is not the same as the rotation of a galaxy, which is inferred from the evidence, and common descent is inferred from evidence.

The Barbarian said:

I don't know of anyone who does that.

Click to expand...

It happens all the time.

sfs said:

As far as I can tell, 'fact' means a statement about reality that we have enough confidence in that we can treat it as true.

Click to expand...

The Barbarian said:

Evolution isn't a theory. Gravity isn't a theory. These are observed phenomena. Gravitational theory and evolutionary theory explain them.

Click to expand...

That's sad. If people are using terms that way, it represents the deterioration of the rigorous language earlier scientists worked hard to define. It's one step closer to accepting the circular statement that evolution explains evolution. I'm sorry you were taught that. Do you have a reference on scientific method that supports your example? A reference from a biology publication that speaks of evolution fact and evolution theory? Same question regarding gravity.

I will continue to maintain you've never seen gravity - only it's effects. But I expect you consider that a philosophical distinction unworthy of consideration.

Still, definition of terms is important. I battle it all the time. People in my field often refer to a damper when they mean an absorber ... two completely different things.