Human & Ape Inquiry

inquiring mind said:

Then by your own admission, not mine, it really is just something you believe to be, or may have been as in the case of macroevolution, and is based only on your particular testing method (including fallibilities) and personal conclusion, which can differ from others.

Click to expand...

We could play a semantics game back and forth about this (this all comes down to what you think a "belief" is). But that's really besides the point.

My original question to you was about how hypotheses related to past events can be scientifically tested. Can you answer that? You said you would attempt it.

Or are you just looking for a reason to reject scientific conclusions you don't like (e.g. labeling conclusions from scientific testing as just a "belief" and then categorically rejecting them)?

inquiring mind said:

Then by your own admission, not mine, it really is just something you believe to be, or may have been as in the case of macroevolution, and is based only on your particular testing method (including fallibilities) and personal conclusion, which can differ from others.

Click to expand...

No. The probability that we share a common ancestor with chimps, for example, may not be 100%, but that doesn't mean that it is "really just something we believe to be." Because that probability is still greater than 99.9%.

When we say that science doesn't deal in absolute proof, it doesn't mean that it can't get to "beyond reasonable doubt."

inquiring mind said:

Then by your own admission, not mine, it really is just something you believe to be, or may have been as in the case of macroevolution, and is based only on your particular testing method (including fallibilities) and personal conclusion, which can differ from others.

Click to expand...

The evidence is there, available to all for examination. The conclusions are there and the manner in which they were drawn explained. The theory has been tested repeatedly and so far no evidence has come to light which contradicts it. There is no competing theory which explains the evidence better. That's as good as it ever gets in science.

Speedwell said:

There is no competing theory which explains the evidence better.

Click to expand...

There isn't even a competing theory with equivalent explanation let alone better.

inquiring mind said:

Not really. Normally you object to it from others, but in this case you admit it yourself. I just wanted to point out another way you manipulate definitions, including that of 'belief,' to your advantage.


My statement doesn't require that I do it (thank goodness), because you didn't meet the qualifier as I requested. And, why should I, in effect, waste time trying to confirm my knowledge about a scientific methodology that is still vulnerable to personal conclusions, which in the case of macroevolution, is one I disagree with anyway? Do I appear that stupid? I will say this, how could any type experiment phase be considered reliable when known (or thought to be) conditions of the time in question are impossible to replicate?

Click to expand...

So why do you find that problematic only with respect to macro-evolution? "Testing" does not require replication of original conditions, it requires examination of evidence left from past events. In the case of evolution, that evidence is incomplete. But you don't have a better explanation for it.

inquiring mind said:

If you're going to convince me I'm a progressive step up from apes, and other lesser forms of life, you have to be 100%. This is not a game of horseshoes.

Click to expand...

Not surprising that you set the bar at absolute certainty. It will always leave the door open for denial. Nevermind the fact that the denial is based on exceedingly small probabilities, to the point of being utterly ridiculous. Keep the hope alive, man. :rollseyes:

inquiring mind said:

If you're going to convince me I'm a progressive step up from apes, and other lesser forms of life, you have to be 100%. This is not a game of horseshoes.

Click to expand...

You are an ape, all humans are.

inquiring mind said:

Not really. Normally you object to it from others, but in this case you admit it yourself. I just wanted to point out another way you manipulate definitions, including that of 'belief,' to your advantage.

Click to expand...

I haven't even offered a definition of belief. I'm just pointing out that getting into a semantics game will go nowhere useful.

My statement doesn't require that I do it (thank goodness), because you didn't meet the qualifier as I requested. And, why should I, in effect, waste time trying to confirm my knowledge about a scientific methodology that is still vulnerable to personal conclusions, which in the case of macroevolution, is one I disagree with anyway?

Click to expand...

Let's wind back a few steps.

This discussion started with your claim that macroevolution can't be tested. I pointed out that that wasn't true (it is in fact testable) and that claiming it can't be tested suggests a lack of knowledge of how science works.

You appeared to get defensive about such a suggestion so I offered you the opportunity to explain how hypotheses can be scientifically tested as they related to prior events.

You are now declining to explain such (even after saying you would attempt it) which only reinforces that you don't know how science works.

Do I appear that stupid?

Click to expand...

I don't think you are stupid. But I also don't think you know how science works.

I will say this, how could any type experiment phase be considered reliable when known (or thought to be) conditions of the time in question are impossible to replicate?

Click to expand...

This is what I am asking of you. Explain how to scientifically test a hypothesis based on a prior event.

If you're not even going to attempt an explanation, then we're done. My prior point stands.

inquiring mind said:

If you're going to convince me I'm a progressive step up from apes, and other lesser forms of life, you have to be 100%. This is not a game of horseshoes.

Click to expand...

Even the most accurate paternity test cannot tell you with absolute certainty that you are your father's child.

Based on your rationale, it is not even possible for you to prove to me that the person who you "believe" to be your biological father is actually your dad.

inquiring mind said:

If you're going to convince me I'm a progressive step up from apes, and other lesser forms of life, you have to be 100%. This is not a game of horseshoes.

Click to expand...

It's not a "game" at all. It's a reasonable explanation of our origins, and since there is no better explanation as yet it will do to be going on with.

inquiring mind said:

I'm not being a smart aleck, but all of that still does not make it true. It still has an element of 'drawn personal conclusion' in it, and from that standpoint we're on equal ground in the 'which is true department,' no matter which has the greater amount of evidence at this particular time.

Click to expand...

It's not just personal conclusions. It is a public conclusion subject to aggressive young scientists who have a lot to gain by finding fault with it. And because it is a public conclusion, any evidence which comes to light that contradicts it will be obvious. Scientists are primarily interested in doing good science, whatever the outcome. They have nothing to fear from the scriptural exegesis of an eccentric Protestant minority and are not in a contest to see which is right.

inquiring mind said:

Yes, and that's why it's only an interpretation of past events, and not fact by any means. Well, I do have a better explanation for it, but not one you'll accept.

Click to expand...

You don't have any explanation at all besides "God did it" which could just as well apply to evolution as creationism

inquiring mind said:

No, "There is zero proof that species gradually appear through a slow transformation from a common ancestor (something other than man)."

Click to expand...

There is zero proof of anything in science, that's not how it works; proof is for statements in formal logical systems. However, there is overwhelming evidence for speciation - it's been observed many times in the lab and in the wild.

inquiring mind said:

I've noticed you lock on to things like this, keep reiterrating your point or request like its being avoided, in an effort to make someone look unknowledgable.

Click to expand...

I'm simply trying to avoid drifting away from the original point. I'm looking for a resolution on that, which you can provide by either explaining how hypotheses related to past events can be scientifically tested (thus demonstrating your understanding of how science works) or not (thus confirming my original claim about your perceived lack of understanding thereof).

I have told you there is no observable science test for lengthy past events, zero, none, can't be done. All you have is historical science, which is only your interpretation of evidence left behind, and subject to personal conclusions.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "observable science test"?

Insofar as interpretation of evidence, that's par for the course in everything to do with science whether we're talking about an experiment performed in a lab or observation of evidence left behind from an event that took place a hundred million years prior.

If you can't accept that answer, I'm afraid your knowledge of science is questionable, and I'll have to decide if I want to waste any more time in conversation with you.

Click to expand...

Trying to flip this around isn't going to work. I've also noticed some common creationist themes in your responses that I'm already familiar with.

What you need here is not a defensive argument; just be honest about what you understand about science.