Evolution is not science

[hgkeller771]

There is a cult of ignorance in all countries. In man himself. Why do you want to make it look like the USA is the center of all evil. This is the most Christian country in the world. God has smiled on us for two centuries. Now our country is moving away from God and we are seeing the results of that.

 

[Heissonear]

There is no scientism.

Most definitely their is and you are a representative.


From Wikipedia:

"Scientism is a term used, often pejoratively, to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints. It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society." An individual who subscribes to scientism is referred to as a scientismist."

.

 

[Doveaman]

Tentatively confirmed?

What on earth does that mean?

Exactly what it says. All theories are tentative - they're subject to change in light of new data. Nothing is ever 100% proven

So confirmed doesn't really mean confirmed.

Got it.


Tentative : not done with confidence : uncertain and hesitant : not definite : still able to be changed : not fully worked out or developed

Webster


Confirm : to state or show that (something) is true or correct: to tell someone that something has definitely happened or is going to happen

Webster


I'm scratching my head for a reason.

 

[lasthero]

So confirmed doesn't really mean confirmed.

Got it.


Tentative : not done with confidence : uncertain and hesitant : not definite : still able to be changed : not fully worked out or developed

Webster


Confirm : to state or show that (something) is true or correct: to tell someone that something has definitely happened or is going to happen

Webster


I'm scratching my head for a reason.

You've never heard of something being 'disconfirmed?'

dis·con·firm transitive verb \ˌdis-kən-ˈfərm\

DISCONFIRM

: to deny or refute the validity of


Just because we confirm something doesn't mean we're 100% right about it - it only means that we've accepted it with all the available facts. For instance, a witness might confirm that a suspect was with them on a particular night. If this witness is shown to be lying, however, this is disconfirmed.

Maybe this can help you - it's an excerpt from Richard Feynman, who, I think, excellently explains the concept.

Suppose that you invent a good guess, calculate the consequences, and discover every time that the consequences you have calculated agree with experiment. The theory is then right? No, it is simply not proved wrong. Because in the future there could be a wider range of experiments, you could compute a wider range of consequences, and you may discover that the thing is wrong.

That's why the laws like Newton's Laws about the motion of planets last such a long time. You get the law of gravitation and all the kinds of consequences for the solar system, and so on, compare them to experiment, and it took several hundred years before the slight error of the motion of Mercury was developed. During all that time, the theory had been failed to be proved wrong and could be taken to be temporarily right. But it can never be proved right because tomorrow's experiment may succeed in proving what you thought was right wrong.

We never are right; we can only be sure we're wrong.

Does this help? I'm guessing you're confused because you're lumping all the definitions of 'tentative' together, but for the purposes of this conversation, tentative just means that something is subject to change. 'Provisional' would probably be a more precise word.

It's the same way we convict criminals - we use the best available evidence and make a judgement. But if, after the criminal is tried, strong evidence is brought forth showing he's innocent, we, bare minimum, given the criminal a chance to be retried and have his case re-examined with the new evidence (ideally, anyway; that's the way it's supposed to work) We don't say that he's doomed to serve out his sentence no matter what new evidence is presented - the verdict is tentative, in the sense that it can change in the light of new data.

 

[Heissonear]

You've never heard of something being 'disconfirmed?'
dis·con·firm transitive verb \ˌdis-kən-ˈfərm\
DISCONFIRM
: to deny or refute the validity of

Just because we confirm something doesn't mean we're 100% right about it - it only means that we've accepted it with all the available facts. For instance, a witness might confirm that a suspect was with them on a particular night. If this witness is shown to be lying, however, this is disconfirmed.

Maybe this can help you - it's an excerpt from Richard Feynman, who, I think, excellently explains the concept.

Does this help? I'm guessing you're confused because you're lumping all the definitions of 'tentative' together, but for the purposes of this conversation, tentative just means that something is subject to change. 'Provisional' would probably be a more precise word.

It's the same way we convict criminals - we use the best available evidence and make a judgement. But if, after the criminal is tried, strong evidence is brought forth showing he's innocent, we, bare minimum, given the criminal a chance to be retried and have his case re-examined with the new evidence (ideally, anyway; that's the way it's supposed to work) We don't say that he's doomed to serve out his sentence no matter what new evidence is presented - the verdict is tentative, in the sense that it can change in the light of new data.

The "facts of men" verses the "Voice of God" in light of True with a capital "T" verses true with a small "t".

When God writes His Word upon our heart through His Spirit, what we hear in heart is capital "T". The facts of men does not compare in being conclusive, absolute, and the like in how things are.

.

 

[lasthero]

The "facts of men" verses the "Voice of God" in light of True with a capital "T" verses true with a small "t".

When God writes His Word upon our heart through His Spirit, what we hear in heart is capital "T". The facts of men does not compare in being conclusive, absolute, and the like in how things are.

.

That's nice. Has nothing to do with the point I was addressing, but nice.

 

[sfs]

Those scientists, PHD'S, Nobel prize winners and nominees, vehemently working in the 50's, 60's, and 70's to prove that evolution proved the lack of necessity of a creator have mostly now changed their minds and taken to believing in God a creator. New discoveries in cell structure and DNA have led them to believe that life on earth was a designed mechanism by a designer. Read David's Gift by H G Keller and The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel.

Sorry, but they haven't. Scientists are generally irreligious, and religious scientists overwhelmingly reject creationism and intelligent design.

 

[hgkeller771]

Both Watson and Crick have changed their minds about life starting on its own. Others such as William Lane Craig, PhD, Jonathan Wells, PhD, PhD, Stephen C. Meyer, PhD, Robin Collins, PhD, Guillermo Gonzalez, PhD, Jay Wesley Richards, PhD. and Michael J. Behe, PhD just to name a few. Maybe you are right, that most are irreligious but my statement that most of those in the 50's through the 70's working so hard to disprove our creator have now changed their minds.

 

[bhsmte]

Both Watson and Crick have changed their minds about life starting on its own. Others such as William Lane Craig, PhD, Jonathan Wells, PhD, PhD, Stephen C. Meyer, PhD, Robin Collins, PhD, Guillermo Gonzalez, PhD, Jay Wesley Richards, PhD. and Michael J. Behe, PhD just to name a few. Maybe you are right, that most are irreligious but my statement that most of those in the 50's through the 70's working so hard to disprove our creator have now changed their minds.

William Lane Craig is not a scientist.

 

[hgkeller771]

William Lane Craig is not a scientist.

REALLY? You are going to refute my argument by saying William Lane Craig was not a scientist? He is a Cosmologist and has written books and articles in philosophical and scientific journals.

 

[bhsmte]

REALLY? You are going to refute my argument by saying William Lane Craig was not a scientist? He is a Cosmologist and has written books and articles in philosophical and scientific journals.

Sure he has written articles, but he is not a scientist. He is a christian apologist, who writes his opinions on cosmology, but is not trained or educated as a scientist.

Craig graduated from East Peoria Community High School in 1967 before attending Wheaton College, Illinois, where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in communications in 1971 and two summa cum laude master's degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, in 1975, in philosophy of religion and ecclesiastical history and in the History of Christian Thought.[1] He earned a Ph.D. in philosophy under John Hick at the University of Birmingham, England, in 1977 and a D.Theol. under Wolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich, in the former West Germany, in 1984.[7]

 

[bhsmte]

There is a cult of ignorance in all countries. In man himself. Why do you want to make it look like the USA is the center of all evil. This is the most Christian country in the world. God has smiled on us for two centuries. Now our country is moving away from God and we are seeing the results of that.

The entrenchment of christianity in the United States is not as strong as many would believe.

Only 30% of people in the United States have; "a strong belief in God", which would lead one to believe, many of those who claim to be christian, have varying doubts about their identity as a christian and many go along out of either habit or political or social pressures to do so.

http://www.norc.org/PDFs/Beliefs_about_God_Report.pdf

 

[sfs]

Both Watson and Crick have changed their minds about life starting on its own. Others such as William Lane Craig, PhD, Jonathan Wells, PhD, PhD, Stephen C. Meyer, PhD, Robin Collins, PhD, Guillermo Gonzalez, PhD, Jay Wesley Richards, PhD. and Michael J. Behe, PhD just to name a few. Maybe you are right, that most are irreligious but my statement that most of those in the 50's through the 70's working so hard to disprove our creator have now changed their minds.

Craig is a philosopher, not a scientist.
Wells is a Moonie who only got his science education to attack evolution.
Meyer has some training as a geophysicist, but none in evolution or the origin of life, and never worked in those fields (and was certainly never an atheist trying to disprove God through science).
Robin Collins is a philosopher (with some training in physics).
Gonzalez is an astronomer, does not work on evolution or the origin of life, and again was never an atheist trying to disprove God.
Richards seems to be a philosopher and theologian.
Behe is a biochemist, and is the only one of this list who does research even vaguely related to your claim. He does indeed attack unguided evolution, but that's not something he changed his mind about: as far as I know, he's always held his current opinions.

That leaves just Watson and Crick. Crick did indeed (with Orgel) speculate about extraterrestrial origins for life on earth, since he considered a natural origin too unlikely here. He later changed his mind about that, however, in light of more recent theories (see here). I have no idea what Watson's views are on the origin of life (he certainly accepts evolution as the explanation for the history of life), and can find no reference to his views.

So the only scientist on your list who's actually worked on these issues and who has changed his mind seems to be James Crick, who came to view a natural origin of life on earth as being more likely.

I've worked with and talked to hundreds of working geneticists. I've never heard a single one express any doubt about the evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life. Your claim does not reflect the reality of the scientific community.

 

[sfs]

REALLY? You are going to refute my argument by saying William Lane Craig was not a scientist? He is a Cosmologist and has written books and articles in philosophical and scientific journals.

Craig is not a cosmologist.

 

[SkyWriting]

Evolution can not be proven because nobody has ever seen it happening

We see plate tectonics but do not see the breakup of a supercontinent.

It's true that all scientific history is science-fiction. It's all made up
stories based on current observations. If it can't be duplicated by
skeptical observers then it is not real science. It's just science
based fictions.

 

[Gene2memE]

Those scientists, PHD'S, Nobel prize winners and nominees, vehemently working in the 50's, 60's, and 70's to prove that evolution proved the lack of necessity of a creator have mostly now changed their minds and taken to believing in God a creator. New discoveries in cell structure and DNA have led them to believe that life on earth was a designed mechanism by a designer. Read David's Gift by H G Keller and The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel.

I haven't heard of David's Gift but The Case for a Creator is about as dishonest a book as I've ever seen put in print. Strobel's presuppositional apologetics are blatant and the fundamentals of science are twisted into some biarre, horrifying parody to make his case.

There ought to be a law.

 

[Split Rock]

We see plate tectonics but do not see the breakup of a supercontinent.

It's true that all scientific history is science-fiction. It's all made up
stories based on current observations. If it can't be duplicated by
skeptical observers then it is not real science. It's just science
based fictions.

Translation: "If it goes against the historical narrative I derived from scripture, then it is made up stories and not real science."

Funny how someone as "skeptical" as you has no problem taking in GEN1-2 with talking snakes and magic fruits as an historical narrative. So much for being "skeptical."

 

[Strathos]

So a continent moving a few cm per year will never move a thousand km, even if given millions of years?

 

[lasthero]

We see plate tectonics

When have we ever 'seen' plate tectonics?

If it can't be duplicated by
skeptical observers then it is not real science.

No one can duplicate the orbit of Pluto, and no one's ever seen it make a full orbit around the Sun. Are scientists who calculate the orbit of Pluto not using real science?

 

[Strathos]

No one can duplicate the orbit of Pluto, and no one's ever seen it make a full orbit around the Sun. Are scientists who calculate the orbit of Pluto not using real science?

Everyone knows that Pluto is a scientists' Kryptonite