Both evolution and creationism never provable

Mallon · Mar 15, 2011

Research1 said:
evolution would not be a mere interpretation if it was observable. But since it isn't, its not scientific/factual/empirical. it just remains an interpretation/assumption/faith etc.

Just repeating yourself doesn't make it any truer.

Research1 · Mar 15, 2011

Mallon said:
Just repeating yourself doesn't make it any truer.

Your distorted definition of science opens up science to crackpottery, well done. Since you believe science is based on what is non-observable then i guess you believe all the following are empirical:

1. Pixies.
2. Ghosts.
3. Leprechauns.
4. Tooth fairy.

Mallon · Mar 15, 2011

Research1 said:
Your distorted definition of science opens up science to crackpottery, well done. Since you believe science is based on what is non-observable then i guess you believe all the following are empirical:

1. Pixies.
2. Ghosts.
3. Leprechauns.
4. Tooth fairy.

It's funny that you accuse me of having a distorted definition of science. Are you a scientist? I am. Have you ever successfully applied for science grants? I have.

Again, the history of the evolution of life is not observable in real-time, but that doesn't matter. In science, what must be observable is the evidence used to infer that history (things like fossils, DNA, biogeography, development, etc). What must be repeatable are the experiments used to infer that history (things like cladistic analysis, evo-devo, etc.). That's how science works. And if you think that's a distortion of science, then it isn't just me you're disagreeing with -- it's the entire scientific enterprise. If the research I conduct on evolution was unscientific, I wouldn't have a science degree and I wouldn't be getting science grants.

gluadys · Mar 17, 2011

Research1 said:
Then you might want to inform the world's leading evolutionary biologists..

So you are confusing macro-evolution with the amount of divergence between species. Macro-evolution is evolution at and above the level of species. Scientists would agree we cannot see the amount of divergence that would separate one order from another happening on the scale of a human lifetime. But we can and do observe divergence of one species from another happening within observable time, and that, by definition, is macro-evolution, evolution at the level of species.

All the biologists you just quote-mined would agree with that.

Papias · Mar 17, 2011

Research1, are you familiar with the practice of quote mining, and would you agree that quotemining violates the commandent against bearing false witness?

Papias

shernren · Mar 17, 2011

Research1 said:
Nope, thats called interpretation. Others look at the same data and draw different conclusions. Only the evolutionists are ignorant though and equate their personal interpretation as fact, while all others wrong.

So do I get to look at the history of the past hundred years and conclude that Hitler won World War II? After all, it's interpretation: others can look at the same data and draw different conclusions.

JVPITER · Mar 18, 2011

Research1 said:
Your distorted definition of science opens up science to crackpottery, well done. Since you believe science is based on what is non-observable then i guess you believe all the following are empirical:

1. Pixies.
2. Ghosts.
3. Leprechauns.
4. Tooth fairy.

But the whole point of science is learning about things we can't directly see. Interpreting and inferring from observational evidence is exactly what science is.

So yes: Pixies, ghosts, leprechauns and the tooth fairy are definitely empirical scientific concepts because they could be tested using empirical evidence. However, there has never been any reasonable empirical evidence for these things and plenty against. So whilst they are in principle empirical, they are also false and disproven.

Macroevolution is an empirical scientific concept that has plenty of evidence for it and very little against. So it is an extremely well supported concept.

Peace

mark kennedy · Mar 20, 2011

Research1 said:
Creation cannot be proved

1. It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe or replicate the creation process.

It is also impossible to reproduce a black hole, that does not mean you can't determine the cause.

2. Creation is not taking place now; therefore it was accomplished sometime in the past, if at all, and thus cannot be observed or tested.

Didn't you become a new creature in Christ when you received the Holy Spirit? No, you can't empirically test that or directly observe it but that does not make it unreal.

Evolution cannot be proved

Evolution defined as what?

1. If evolution is taking place today, it operates too slowly to be measurable (on the macro scale), and therefore, is outside the realm of empirical science.

Yes you can if you can identify the alleles that changed in populations over time.

2. Macroevolution is not observable.

Macroevolution defined as what?

mark kennedy · Mar 20, 2011

Research1 said:
Your distorted definition of science opens up science to crackpottery, well done. Since you believe science is based on what is non-observable then i guess you believe all the following are empirical:

1. Pixies.
2. Ghosts.
3. Leprechauns.
4. Tooth fairy.

What is your definition of science? I know Mallon's has a requisite naturalistic assumption, how about yours?

Oh and by the way, Leprechauns are not scientific because they are Irish and prefer poetry over proof, it's not their fault.

mark kennedy · Mar 20, 2011

JVPITER said:
Macroevolution is an empirical scientific concept that has plenty of evidence for it and very little against. So it is an extremely well supported concept.

Would you care to elaborate because I have never seen that term used in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Don't get me wrong, I see great potential in the use of the word, just wondering what it means to you.

Mallon · Mar 20, 2011

mark kennedy said:
What is your definition of science? I know Mallon's has a requisite naturalistic assumption, how about yours?

For what it's worth, it isn't just me. It's all scientists. Scientific mechanisms must be testable by making observable predictions. I'm not the only one who thinks this.

metherion · Mar 20, 2011

Mine does too. Over here in chemistry, we don't get to say that God causes things to bond or that it's anti-God to have the naturalistic assumption that all the elements found in supernovae came (at some point) from fusion of H, He, and Li in the star instead of being put there.

Does that make chemistry not real science? Just wondering.

Metherion

mark kennedy · Mar 20, 2011

Mallon said:
For what it's worth, it isn't just me. It's all scientists. Scientific mechanisms must be testable by making observable predictions. I'm not the only one who thinks this.

You have a real problem, if you never allow a miraculous explanation or divine fiat as a cause there are logical consequences. I made the effort to actually define science before I determined what can and cannot be considered a cause. Whether or not it's a miracle should be beside the point, God acting in time and space qualifies at least as a possibility. Except in you definition of science, which is not science, it's supposition.

Mallon · Mar 20, 2011

mark kennedy said:
You have a real problem, if you never allow a miraculous explanation or divine fiat as a cause there are logical consequences.

Just to clarify, I'm not arguing that miracles don't happen; I'm arguing that they are impossible to investigate with science. There's a big difference.

What definition of science do you espouse? Do you accept Behe's definition of science that includes astrology? Do you think astrology should be taught in the science classroom as a scientific alternative to astronomical "naturalism"?

mark kennedy · Mar 20, 2011

Mallon said:
Just to clarify, I'm not arguing that miracles don't happen; I'm arguing that they are impossible to investigate with science. There's a big difference.

What definition of science do you espouse? Do you accept Behe's definition of science that includes astrology? Do you think astrology should be taught in the science classroom as a scientific alternative to astronomical "naturalism"?

Newton's definition works pretty good for me. It's not surprising that I would quote it repeatedly only to have you ask me what my definition is. You keep telling me what science doesn't do but you never define your term.

Your the scientist, define the word for an incredulous layman.

Mallon · Mar 20, 2011

mark kennedy said:
Newton's definition works pretty good for me. It's not surprising that I would quote it repeatedly only to have you ask me what my definition is.

Maybe try putting it in your own words because simply quoting someone doesn't tell me that you understand what they said. What definition of science do you use? Under your definition of science, what new fields of study would you like to see taught in the science classroom? Homeopathy? Astrology? Phrenology? Alchemy? Under your definition, what criterion would you use to determine which of these subjects to teach as science?

Your the scientist, define the word for an incredulous layman.

I've defined science for you before: hypothesis testing. You didn't like it.

Both evolution and creationism never provable

Senior Veteran

Polygenist Old Earth Creationist

Senior Veteran

Legend

Listening to TW4

you are not reading this.

Newbie

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Natura non facit saltum

Senior Veteran

Natura non facit saltum

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency