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.
As I have said before, what alternative hypothesis can you propose that accounts for the observed facts of biology and palaeontology? This hypothesis must make testable predictions if it is to be called scientific.Maybe we should first start by being honest about the methodology here. Science can observe fossils and geological layers. It can hypothesize on connections between these observed facts and come up with grand theories like those of common ancestry and evolution as a mechanism by which life develops over time. We can observe generation-to-generation micro-evolutionary changes but no genus-to-genus change has ever been demonstrably proven using the scientific method. It cannot be because we cannot wait thousands of years in a controlled experiment to see the start and end of the experiment.
Since the scientific method cannot demonstrate macro-evolution then this is not a scientific discussion but rather one of my model versus your model. You may well consider your model more credible than mine but you cannot prove that credibility.
There is evidence and then there is the Theory of Macro-Evolution but the evidence cannot be used scientifically to prove Macro-Evolution because the time spans involved rule that out.
It took me only a few minutes to findThen it is not science. You can prove the Earth goes round the sun and is broadly spherical. Evolution does not have the same level of certainty at all.
Space travel is possible, time travel not. We have spaceships, we do not have time machines. It can be observed that the blue ball goes round the much larger yellow one, just as the grey one goes round the blue. By what means can you demonstrate biological evolution without a time machine?It took me only a few minutes to find. Also, in Unweaving the Rainbow (p. 32), Richard Dawkins describes how the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph reported 'the dumbfounding fact that a third of the British population still believes that the sun goes round the earth.' According to a more recent survey, about 2% of Americans (about 6 million people) have always believed that the Earth is flat, and only 84% have always believed that it is spherical.
If it could be proved that the Earth is spherical and is in orbit around the Sun, nobody would deny these facts. I therefore conclude that the sphericity of the Earth and its motion around the Sun have only the same level of certainty as biological evolution. If you deny the third, you have no good reason to accept the first two. (Of course, I think that the scientific evidence for all three is overwhelmingly strong, and I shall continue to accept them until there is convincing evidence to the contrary.)
Yes that was your question and the answer was out of scope of what you can comprehend let alone demonstrate using the scientific methodAnd? You could have had that with evolution. The question was, what scientific theory will you replace evolution with?
Space travel is possible, time travel not. We have spaceships, we do not have time machines. It can be observed that the blue ball goes round the much larger yellow one, just as the grey one goes round the blue. By what means can you demonstrate biological evolution without a time machine?
How enigmatic. I presume you can comprehend it.Too bad you can't explain it.Yes that was your question and the answer was out of scope of what you can comprehend let alone demonstrate using the scientific method
With the evidence that it happened?Space travel is possible, time travel not. We have spaceships, we do not have time machines. It can be observed that the blue ball goes round the much larger yellow one, just as the grey one goes round the blue. By what means can you demonstrate biological evolution without a time machine?
What about the genetic relations between different species, genera, and higher taxa requires a time machine to detect?
What about the pattern of fossil species requires a time machine to observe?
What about the explicit experiments that have demonstrated evolution requires a time machine?
How enigmatic. I presume you can comprehend it.Too bad you can't explain it.
With the evidence that it happened?
We have the agreed upon examples of "micro evolution" even beyond speciation; we have the pattern of genetics and fossils that demonstrate the history of it.
Just like we haven't observed the full orbit of Pluto we can make inferences from the evidence of the other big round things in the Solar system.
Likewise we have't observed directly the full variation of the common ancestor of genus Homo and Genus Pan... but we have all the other evidence.
With the evidence that it happened?
We have the agreed upon examples of "micro evolution" even beyond speciation; we have the pattern of genetics and fossils that demonstrate the history of it.
Just like we haven't observed the full orbit of Pluto we can make inferences from the evidence of the other big round things in the Solar system.
Likewise we have't observed directly the full variation of the common ancestor of genus Homo and Genus Pan... but we have all the other evidence.
Sure. Anyone can just make up "alternate explanations" based on their imaginations, especially if they also imagine impossible, unprovable things happening like literal magic and deities.Analagous patterns do not prove connections and especially when alternate explanations exist in a supernatural creation by the same God who designed all creatures and a flood with supernatural elements. I can gossip about how someone usually behaves in a certain way and then suggest on that basis that he did an action on the precise occasion in question and be utterly wrong. Patterns are the same as gossip when the sequence of actual events cannot be substantiated.
Are you aware of any data that demonstratesAnalagous patterns do not prove connections and especially when alternate explanations exist in a supernatural creation by the same God who designed all creatures and a flood with supernatural elements. I can gossip about how someone usually behaves in a certain way and then suggest on that basis that he did an action on the precise occasion in question and be utterly wrong. Patterns are the same as gossip when the sequence of actual events cannot be substantiated.
What about god is not speculation?Regarding the orbit of Pluto that is not the same as substantiating evolution. We know that the inner planets orbit the sun, not least because we inhabit one of these and can check the angles and distances with trigonometry. We also know that gravity has a relationship with mass such that the smaller moon goes around the earth and the smaller earth goes round the sun. The smaller moons go round the larger Jupiter etc. If we doubt the math we can send spaceships to directly confirm this and take pictures here and now.
We know that Pluto exists because we have seen it and we can measure its trajectory, by observing its path across the sky also. It behaves exactly like all the other planets and planetoids with variations in its path explicable in terms of the tug of gravity by alternate known bodies on its orbit.
So much of this analysis can be directly confirmed by anyone with a basic understanding of trigonometry, a good enough telescope or indeed a spaceship. There are enough competing actors now to confirm that one person with the tools is not making up the story as there are now multiple people with the tools to demonstrate this.
You cannot do this with evolution, the timespans do not allow it. It would be the same as suggesting we could observe an unilluminated 1 billion year orbit of a planetoid at a great distance from the sun and where the presence of alternate gravitational influences could only be guessed upon. Purely speculative in other words.
Yes, in your view science cannot make valid inferences about past events merely from the evidence left behind by those events. I get that. What I don't get is how theology is supposed to do that, especially as theology does not rule out the possibility that the inferences drawn by science are reasonable and perhaps even correct.Not that enigmatic, science simply cannot answer certain questions. Theology can answer these questions.
And no evidence left behind ftom which to draw inferences.Yes, in your view science cannot make valid inferences about past events merely from the evidence left behind by those events. I get that. What I don't get is how theology is supposed to do that, especially as theology does not rule out the possibility that the inferences drawn by science are reasonable and perhaps even correct.
And no evidence left behind from which to draw inferences.
And no evidence left behind ftom which to draw inferences.
Analagous patterns do not prove connections and especially when alternate explanations exist in a supernatural creation by the same God who designed all creatures and a flood with supernatural elements. I can gossip about how someone usually behaves in a certain way and then suggest on that basis that he did an action on the precise occasion in question and be utterly wrong. Patterns are the same as gossip when the sequence of actual events cannot be substantiated.
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?