Human & Ape Inquiry

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
You don't have any explanation at all besides "God did it" which could just as well apply to evolution as creationism
It could, I just think the Bible states otherwise... and you don't appear to care what the Bible says.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
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).



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.



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.
Yep, this confirms your lack of knowledge in science... I suspected it all along, and I'm not wasting any more time with someone who doesn't know the difference in observational and historical science.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Yep, this confirms your lack of knowledge in science... I suspected it all along, and I'm not wasting any more time with someone who doesn't know the difference in observational and historical science.

As I said I'm familiar with the standard creationist playbook** and this response is pulled directly from it. And if you've gotten your education on the scientific method from creationist sources, then it precisely reaffirms my original observation. That's why I said you don't need a defensive argument here.

Also, trying to play the "I know you are but what I am" card? Do you really think that is going to work?

At any rate, carry on. :clap:

*****************************************

** As an aside for any lurkers, creationist organizations have created this idea that there are two types of science: observational versus historical. The idea is that science performed with directly observable events (e.g. a science experiment in a lab) is considered more definitive than interpretation of evidence from past events that have not been directly observed. In effect, they are trying to cast an air of doubt on anything that occurred in the past which allows them to more readily dismiss any scientific conclusions they disagree with.

What creationist sources won't tell you is that past events can still be scientifically tested. This is done by forming hypotheses related to how such events occurred and then deriving predictions of what should be observed based on an understanding of how such processes work. This can even include predicting observable evidence that has not yet been discovered.

A primary example of this is the plethora of molecular evidence which supports common ancestry which post-dates the original evolutionary hypothesis of the same by decades. Even knowledge of the mechanism of inheritance (DNA) wasn't known at a time when evolutionary hypotheses were first being proposed. Yet instead of blowing evolution out of the water, evidence from such new lines of discovery have instead reaffirmed the idea that organisms share ancestry with one another.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Yep, this confirms your lack of knowledge in science... I suspected it all along, and I'm not wasting any more time with someone who doesn't know the difference in observational and historical science.

Science makes no distinction between observational and historical science. That is purely a creationism canard. Spouting this rhetoric only exposes YOUR lack of familiarity with science, not his.

After all, ALL science is historical, whether it is billions of years in the past, or microseconds.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Science makes no distinction between observational and historical science. That is purely a creationism canard. Spouting this rhetoric only exposes YOUR lack of familiarity with science, not his.

After all, ALL science is historical, whether it is billions of years in the past, or microseconds.

On a side note, I find it fascinating how creationist organizations have essentially utilized marketing/political tactics to re-brand and re-frame these discussions with different terminology.

The whole observational versus historical science is a great example. Macroevolution vs microevolution is another. Even inquiring mind's response to speciation by immediately rebranding them as "variations" is yet another.

It's amazing to me how creationist orgs have built their strategy around these marketing tactics. And moreso based on how inquiring mind is responding in this thread, how it appears to have worked.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
It could, I just think the Bible states otherwise... and you don't appear to care what the Bible says.
I care a good deal about what the Bible says. It is divine revelation after all. But I think that a "literal & inerrant" interpretation of Genesis is shallow and theologically inadequate and wouldn't want anything to do with it even if there was no theory of evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,268
1,515
76
England
✟230,857.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
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?

The simple answer is that you, like all the rest of us, could be wrong, and that, if you are wrong, trying to confirm your knowledge about scientific methodology would correct your errors. I suppose that most scientists have had the experience of trying to confirm their knowledge about a vulnerable scientific methodology and, as a result, of finding that they were wrong and that they had to change their 'personal conclusions'.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
It's called variations.
Variations of a certain kind, i.e. significant variations between whole populations. The number of different independent ways the theory predicts we should see evidence of these variations in present and past populations and the finding that they are all observed just as predicted, make it astronomically unlikely that they could be coincidental - and the fact that we have an observed mechanism that explains how the variations arise and has given us a precise mathematical model of how the variations spread within populations, means that it's arguably the best and most well-tested theory in science (pace quantum mechanics).

To deny it rationally, you need to come up with some good reason why the observed mechanism could not be the cause of those changes and why the various independent lines of evidence predicted by the theory are not evidence for the theory and come up with a better theory to explain all the independent lines of evidence.

Good luck with that.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,130
6,382
29
Wales
✟346,757.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
No, "There is zero proof that species gradually appear through a slow transformation from a common ancestor (something other than man)."

A claim... with zero evidence.

Why would I need authority in the sciences to say it. The truth doesn't always require science's approval.

Except that you aren't saying the truth. You're making a spurious claim with zero evidence to back it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLP
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I care a good deal about what the Bible says. It is divine revelation after all. But I think that a "literal & inerrant" interpretation of Genesis is shallow and theologically inadequate and wouldn't want anything to do with it even if there was no theory of evolution.
You mean you wouldn’t believe the Genesis account of God creating us even if there was no TOE blinding you from that truth.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
You mean you wouldn’t believe the Genesis account of God creating us even if there was no TOE blinding you from that truth.
I wouldn't believe that the "Garden" story was a factually accurate literal historical account of it. It's not that kind of narrative.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The simple answer is that you, like all the rest of us, could be wrong, and that, if you are wrong, trying to confirm your knowledge about scientific methodology would correct your errors.
In what way has your knowledge about scientific methodolgy been confirmed and corrected here?
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
On a side note, I find it fascinating how creationist organizations have essentially utilized marketing/political tactics to re-brand and re-frame these discussions with different terminology.

The whole observational versus historical science is a great example. Macroevolution vs microevolution is another. Even inquiring mind's response to speciation by immediately rebranding them as "variations" is yet another.

It's amazing to me how creationist orgs have built their strategy around these marketing tactics. And moreso based on how inquiring mind is responding in this thread, how it appears to have worked.

They have to. It's all they've got.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Variations of a certain kind, i.e. significant variations between whole populations. The number of different independent ways the theory predicts we should see evidence of these variations in present and past populations and the finding that they are all observed just as predicted, make it astronomically unlikely that they could be coincidental - and the fact that we have an observed mechanism that explains how the variations arise and has given us a precise mathematical model of how the variations spread within populations, means that it's arguably the best and most well-tested theory in science (pace quantum mechanics).

To deny it rationally, you need to come up with some good reason why the observed mechanism could not be the cause of those changes and why the various independent lines of evidence predicted by the theory are not evidence for the theory and come up with a better theory to explain all the independent lines of evidence.

Good luck with that.
You mean like it can't be defended biologically as far as observational science goes, and its not supported by historical science (inadequate fossil record interpretations).
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
You mean like it can't be defended biologically as far as observational science goes, and its not supported by historical science (inadequate fossil record interpretations).
No. Quite the opposite. In fact, the theory has been used to successfully predict the particular rock strata where certain missing 'intermediary' species fossils were likely to be found.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
You mean like it can't be defended biologically as far as observational science goes, and its not supported by historical science (inadequate fossil record interpretations).
It can be defended biologically by demonstrating a process which is active today and can be observed in lab and field and is competent to produce the changes required by macro-evolution. It can be defended by the fossil record, which in some developmental sequences is quite complete and is entirely consistent with having been produced by the mechanism of evolution. Why should we suppose that an entirely different process just happen to be at work in those areas where that fossil record is not complete?
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
What creationist sources won't tell you is that past events can still be scientifically tested. This is done by forming hypotheses related to how such events occurred and then deriving predictions of what should be observed based on an understanding of how such processes work. This can even include predicting observable evidence that has not yet been discovered.

It can be defended biologically by demonstrating a process which is active today and can be observed in lab and field and is competent to produce the changes required by macro-evolution. It can be defended by the fossil record, which in some developmental sequences is quite complete and is entirely consistent with having been produced by the mechanism of evolution. Why should we suppose that an entirely different process just happen to be at work in those areas where that fossil record is not complete?
More commonly known as guesswork, speculation, conjecture, and connecting the dots. I'm not using these terms lightly... we're talking deep time, no clue of the forces, or force, at work.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
More commonly known as guesswork, speculation, conjecture, and connecting the dots. I'm not using these terms lightly... we're talking deep time, no clue of the forces, or force, at work.
That's OK, you don't have to believe it. But as a provisional explanation for those of us who are not committed to an Evangelical Protestant take on the Bible, it works well enough to be going on with. It will never be "absolute truth" like you think you've got. Science doesn't do absolute truth.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
More commonly known as guesswork, speculation, conjecture, and connecting the dots.

No, what I posted is known by none of these terms. When I talk about scientific predictions, I'm talking about just that: predictions. Which can then be confirmed (or disaffirmed) by looking for evidence thereof.

Trying to relabel things isn't going to work here. It only reinforces that you're just looking for ways of denying things you don't like.

I'm not using these terms lightly... we're talking deep time, no clue of the forces, or force, at work.

Unless you're going for a dad-style argument whereby you argue that the laws of physics don't work the same in the past, there is no reason to assume otherwise. In fact, we can even test assumptions about how things would have worked in the past in the same fashion as any scientific testing.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums