Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Please enlighten us and explain specifically why it is impossible to carry out direct experitments on evolution. And please explain why all the current research into evolution does not fall into this category.Shane Roach said:Why is it that the difference between a science like physics, in which hypotheses can be tested and show repeatedly to work, and a study like evolution, which is quite frankly impossible to ever directly experiment with, is lost on you?
I answered it already. yet, you ignore it and run around to others trying to get them to answer by bearing false witness, claiming it wasn't answered? Why the need for dishonesty?Shane Roach said:No... making yourself the questioner leaves you in charge of the discussion. I have asked an honest question. I have asked why it is that folks such as yourself have a hard time understanding the difference between science that is done such that each step of it is demonstrable and repeatable in real time, and a study such as evolution that relies on abstractions of known facts cast back through time that can never be demonstrated in real time?
You go first for once.
steen said:I answered it already. yet, you ignore it and run around to others trying to get them to answer by bearing false witness, claiming it wasn't answered? Why the need for dishonesty?
And insulting people and accusing them of lying just because they do not buy evolution? Why is it that the difference between a science like physics, in which hypotheses can be tested and show repeatedly to work, and a study like evolution, which is quite frankly impossible to ever directly experiment with, is lost on you?
You question was addressed, twice.In the rush to defend evolution, somehow all of you neglected to address the actual difference I pointed out.
Could it be because underneath all the bluster there IS no answer?
Shane Roach said:Is this your answer?
"This is a misrepresentation. Evolution and Biology is researched through the same Scientific method as is used to research physics. In Biology, hypotheses can be tested just as they can in physics. Your misrepresentation of the Scientific Method is frankly pathetic."
It does not address the question. I specifically asked how it is that you miss the difference between the study of evolution, which requires you to take the results of experiments and imagine how they might unfold in the past without the possibility of experimenting on those conclusions, vs the actual experiments themselves which can be carried out repeatedly and demonstrated to be reliable.
I await your next insulting tirade. It is I imagine all you have to offer, since the obvious answer to the question is something your theology cannot encompass.
yes, it does. It shows your misrepresentation of science as not valid.Shane Roach said:Is this your answer?
"This is a misrepresentation. Evolution and Biology is researched through the same Scientific method as is used to research physics. In Biology, hypotheses can be tested just as they can in physics. Your misrepresentation of the Scientific Method is frankly pathetic."
It does not address the question.
Because The study of Evolution, biology, cosmology, geology and many other scientific fields are under no such silly contrains as what you claim. Or are you going to claim somethign as silly as that ONLY Physics is "real" science?I specifically asked how it is that you miss the difference between the study of evolution, which requires you to take the results of experiments and imagine how they might unfold in the past without the possibility of experimenting on those conclusions, vs the actual experiments themselves which can be carried out repeatedly and demonstrated to be reliable.
steen said:yes, it does. It shows your misrepresentation of science as not valid.
Because The study of Evolution, biology, cosmology, geology and many other scientific fields are under no such silly contrains as what you claim. Or are you going to claim somethign as silly as that ONLY Physics is "real" science?
I await your next insulting tirade. It is I imagine all you have to offer, since the obvious answer to the question is something your lack of knowledge of science cannot encompass.
steen said:Because there is no such thing as what you msirepresent.
It really is true, the tread's title. If you as proxy-creationist would get your way, science would be destroyed. You are proving the OP.
In English, please?Shane Roach said:There's no such thing as a what, Steen?
Why can you not see a difference between a science that is characterized be repeatable demonstrations of its reliability in real time vs a science like evolution which depends upon constant alteration as the actual, verifiable experimental evidence becomes available?
Melethiel said:In English, please?
All fields are constantly updated...even Physics and Chemistry.random_guy said:He's saying that evolution is untestable in the present by repeated experiments (which's he's wrong, a literature survey proves this easily) and that evolution is updated as we gain new information (which is a basic part of science). Gee, we should not teach geology or astronomy since we constantly update those fields, either, which makes them not science.
Melethiel said:All fields are constantly updated...even Physics and Chemistry.
Shane Roach said:Well that's what you get for answering the question as framed by someone who is avoiding answering it.
No one is arguing that scientific fields are not constantly evolving. I would ask when's the last time you heard a substantial revamp however of the rate of gravitational acceleration close to the earth's surface?
Why do you have such a difficult time discerning the difference between that sort of thing, and science that is all about ideas and concepts that cannot be experimented on?
Botanical Society of America said:For example, plant biologists have long been interested in the origins of crop plants. Wheat is an ancient crop of the Middle East. Three species exist both as wild and domesticated wheats, einkorn, emmer, and breadwheat. Archeological studies have demonstrated that einkorn is the most ancient and breadwheat appeared most recently. To plant biologists this suggested that somehow einkorn gave rise to emmer, and emmer gave rise to breadwheat (an hypothesis). Further evidence was obtained from chromosome numbers that showed einkorn with 14, emmer with 28, and breadwheat with 42. Further, the chromosomes in einkorn consisted of two sets of 7 chromosomes, designated AA. Emmer had 14 chromosomes similar in shape and size, but 14 more, so they were designated AABB. Breadwheat had chromosomes similar to emmer, but 14 more, so they were designated AABBCC. To plant biologists familiar with mechanisms of speciation, these data, the chromosome numbers and sets, suggested that the emmer and breadwheat species arose via hybridization and polyploidy (an hypothesis). The Middle Eastern flora was studied to find native grasses with a chromosome number of 14, and several goatgrasses were discovered that could be the predicted parents, the sources of the BB and CC chromosomes. To test these hypotheses, plant biologists crossed einkorn and emmer wheats with goatgrasses, which produced sterile hybrids. These were treated to produce a spontaneous doubling of the chromosome number, and as predicted, the correct crosses artificially produced both the emmer and breadwheat species. No one saw the evolution of these wheat species, but logical predictions about what happened were tested by recreating likely circumstances. Grasses are wind-pollinated, so cross-pollination between wild and cultivated grasses happens all the time. Frosts and other natural events are known to cause a doubling of chromosomes. And the hypothesized sequence of speciation matches their observed appearance in the archeological record. Farmers would notice and keep new wheats, and the chromosome doubling and hybrid vigor made both emmer and breadwheat larger, more vigorous wheats. Lastly, a genetic change in breadwheat from the wild goatgrass chromosomes allowed for the chaff to be removed from the grain without heating, so glutin was not denatured, and a sourdough (yeast infected) culture of the sticky breadwheat flour would inflate (rise) from the trapped carbon dioxide.
The actual work was done by many plant biologists over many years, little by little, gathering data and testing ideas, until these evolutionary events were understood as generally described above. The hypothesized speciation events were actually recreated, an accomplishment that allows plant biologists to breed new varieties of emmer and bread wheats. Using this speciation mechanism, plant biologists hybridized wheat and rye, producing a new, vigorous, high protein cereal grain, Triticale.
Shane Roach said:I don't need to explain anything. I know full well you have no answer for it.
There is a fundamental difference in the reliability of information that has been repeatedly verified first hand vs information whose verification has to be gathered in other more roundabout ways. This is a fundamental fact of life and is at the heart and soul of the scientific method. It doesn't mean that evolution is not a science. It means that just because something is part of a scientific exploration does not make it automatically reliable information, and the degree of reliability differs from one subject to the other.
So, I ask again. Why is it that those of you so commited to evolution have such a hard time discerning the difference between science that is experimentally verified repeatedly in real time vs science that depends on an extrapolation of known, experimentally verfified concepts back into time? Why do you treat it as if it were the exact same thing as a light bulb turning on or off, which yes, I have had MANY evolution supporting people use EXACTLY that sort of analogy on me.
"Christians don't want to believe in evolution but they want to use electricity."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?