Facts To Prove The Theory Of Evolution

[Chesterton]

Sorry, but the patterns we see in comparative genetics are not expected from a common designer -- the differences show evidence of common descent as much as the similarities.

Fundamentally untrue.

The point about the genetic evidence for evolution is that it indicates a branching tree structure of species... which would not be predicted by any kind of designer.

For example if a car designer discovers a new recipe for creating tires then it would be implemented accross the whole line, not developed separately and independently for trucks, vans and cars as we see in living species.

It's not the fact of similarity it's the pattern of similarity.

What you have both said is fundamentally untrue, and cannot be substantiated.

It appears you have misunderstood the title of the book... that's a poor start.

It's about the origin of species, not of life.

Darwin was describing the triggers that caused life to diversify not the origin of life itself.

I said nothing about "life" in my post.

 

[Chesterton]

Of course. What yec doesn't think he knows
more than every scientist on earth?

While the Dunning-Kruger effect is displayed extensively when YECs speak of evolution, we must remember that each of those individuals likely has one or more skills, or area of expertise, wherein they could walk all over us, as individuals. I try to keep that in the forefront of my mind and recognise those fields in which I am not just ignorant, but profoundly ignorant. When I come into contact with such fields I either step away, because they hold no interest, nor listen carefully till I have learned enough to start asking questions. What I don't do is start telling people they don't know what they are talking about or calling them liars. (I reserve that sort of behaviour for fields where I do know what I'm talking about. )

You've made some good points. We do need to keep in mind that each person has value in and of themselves. They also, at least potentially, have something to bring to the table of humanity. Maybe they're YEC and don't have much to contribute to science, but they're great plumbers, electricians, beauticians, grocers, farmers, or they have skills in one of an assortment of other inherently valuable occupations. On some level, we all need each other (or most of us do, anyway).

And you're right to point out that we should all be circumspect and avoid Epistemological Trespassing, an anti-intellectual incursion which not even Human Freedom validates. On the other hand, it's not always an easy thing to help people recognize where their own Dunning-Kruger Boxes end and where the nose of other people's authentic Knowledge begins.

YEC? Whoops. Berlinski's an atheist.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

YEC? Whoops. Berlinski's an atheist.

I wasn't addressing Berlinski. I already know he's an atheist. He's worth a read though ... even if it's just one.

 

[Chesterton]

Actually here in your thread page one you
are told in posts #2, 6. 10, and 20.

Perhaps reading them would refresh your memory.

Only one of those posts was addressed to me.

You figure wrong. Something starts out as a hypothesis that is maybe right and maybe wrong. The evidence will either prove it wrong or support the accuracy of the hypothesis. The hypothesis will never be proved because new evidence may come forwards to prove it wrong and the scientific methodology takes this into account.

So if I have a hypothesis that life only exists on Earth and nowhere else I could easily be proved wrong. But there is no way to every prove I'm right because there might always be a planet that we've not looked at yet.

So basically you can prove a hypothesis is false but you cannot prove it is true. There is always the off chance that new information will come up to prove it wrong.

Does that make sense?

Yes it makes sense. And thank you both and the others for affirming that the theory/hypothesis/idea/story/legend/mythos of evolution is unproven. My work here is done.

 

[sjastro]

Only one of those posts was addressed to me.

Yes it makes sense. And thank you both and the others for affirming that the theory/hypothesis/idea/story/legend/mythos of evolution is unproven. My work here is done.

You mean it took 187 posts before it sunk in theories can only be supported not proven, or are you being disingenuous by suggesting evolution falls into the category of story, legend and myth because it is unproven.

 

[sjastro]

Perhaps it is not a story at all, nor a legend, nor a myth,
but rather a fairy-tale because of its origin.....

Here is some shocking news for you, evolution is a theory about evolution not creation.
A scientific theory for creation involves quantum field theory.

Spacetime or a vacuum can never be totally empty.

Given recent threads involving Krauss about something being created from nothing here is the science perspective. The concept of nothing is very much tied in with the modern or non classical version of a vacuum which is a quantum field in the lowest energy level. You can’t divorce a field from...

www.christianforums.com

 

[sjastro]

Tha' not shocking at all. Many many so-called theories are no longer believed. Some like this one never were believed by anyone who knew/knows better.
i.e. so the faithful may call them fairy-tales ....

Science is by its very nature self correcting so what is your point?
You have offered nothing to demonstrate why evolution is a fairy tale except it clashes with your faith which is at odds with the majority of your fellow Christians who accept evolution.

 

[Ophiolite]

YEC? Whoops. Berlinski's an atheist.

I didn't address Berlinski. I was not responding to any specific post in the thread, but to thoughts prompted by various posts within the thread over the last few days.
FYI The Dunning-Kruger effect, as far as I am aware, is independent of ones religious beliefs, or lack of them.

 

[BeyondET]

Tha' not shocking at all. Many many so-called theories are no longer believed. Some like this one never were believed by anyone who knew/knows better.
i.e. so the faithful may call them fairy-tales ....

And many many theories are still used today. Once man had a theory of talking through computers.

 

[BeyondET]

Notice that while the timely use of tri-corder like devices were in use and seen by Gene Roddenburied before he put them in starkweck episodes,
the use of a transporter beam and of dilithium crystals is restricted still.

For now, you never know what the future holds. Flying was once but just a dream

 

[sfs]

What you have both said is fundamentally untrue, and cannot be substantiated.

Do you have a broad knowledge of comparative genetics? If not (and I very much doubt you do), how could you possibly know whether what I said was true or not?

As it happens, what I said was true and can be substantiated. Part (but only part) of the comparative genetic evidence is laid out in detail here. Would the patterns described there be predicted under a common designer model?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Not in any sense of the reality is science self correcting at all. Money is the major motive (greed), and the mountain of lies produced exceed the federal budget.

So first you accuse us of dogma, then greed, and finally lies. Would you like to go for a full libelslander of scientists next?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Notice that while the timely use of tri-corder like devices were in use and seen by Gene Roddenburied before he put them in starkweck episodes,
the use of a transporter beam and of dilithium crystals is restricted still.

None of those things existed then or now. Dilithium is just a made up. Transporters are likely impossible. Tricorder like devices might be possible. (And it is Roddenberry and Star Trek.)

 

[sfs]

Money is the major motive (greed)

If you think anyone becomes an evolutionary biologist because they want to make heaps of money, you are deeply confused about a lot of things.

 

[Chesterton]

You mean it took 187 posts before it sunk in theories can only be supported not proven, or are you being disingenuous by suggesting evolution falls into the category of story, legend and myth because it is unproven.

I'm not being disingenuous. Evolution is a Victorian era rags-to-riches story, rooted in ancient Greek mythology.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm not being disingenuous. Evolution is a Victorian era rags-to-riches story, rooted in ancient Greek mythology.

I'm sorry, what?

 

[Chesterton]

Do you have a broad knowledge of comparative genetics? If not (and I very much doubt you do), how could you possibly know whether what I said was true or not?

How could you know? I must say, someone claiming to know what God could or couldn't do might be an unsurpassable height of arrogance.

As it happens, what I said was true and can be substantiated. Part (but only part) of the comparative genetic evidence is laid out in detail here. Would the patterns described there be predicted under a common designer model?

Yes of course they would. How would genetics look any different if there were a common designer?

 

[Chesterton]

I'm sorry, what?

It's a story, an idea, a theory. Call it what you want.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's a story, an idea, a theory. Call it what you want.

Okay, but it's demonstrably not. Just because your own incredulity says that it cannot be scientific fact, does not mean it's a story.

 

[Chesterton]

Okay, but it's demonstrably not. Just because your own incredulity says that it cannot be scientific fact, does not mean it's a story.

Well, there's a problem in that I've apparently been told by several people in this thread that science doesn't prove theories, therefore it's not a scientific fact.