How can science observe the past?

[Northern Christian]

Isn't it supposed to observe only things that can be observed? Do evolutionists have a time machine? Then how can they be so sure that evolution is true?

Psuedo-science. A great big old bowl of psuedo-science. Evolution doesn't even meet the basic definition of science.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Anyone ever on trial for a crime with only forensic evidence against them would really want you on the Jury. You are a defense lawer's dream. Without a time machine we can't prove my client guilty.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[MartinM]

And we all know that in a court of law eyewitness accounts trump forensic evidence every time, too.

 

[armed2010]

Northern Christian, I think Koby wants to talk to you

 

[Northern Christian]

Show me beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution is true.

 

[troodon]

Isn't it supposed to observe only things that can be observed? Do evolutionists have a time machine? Then how can they be so sure that evolution is true?

Psuedo-science. A great big old bowl of psuedo-science. Evolution doesn't even meet the basic definition of science.

Forensic science pseudo science as well? Do they have time machines?

Archaeology pseudo science as well? Do they have time machines?

Paleontology pseudo science as well? Do they have time machines?

Jeeze man, do you even think about what you're saying. Using your argument, none of us should be Christians either because we cannot observe Christ. Do we have time machines? Think through your rhetoric please; and, for the sake of all that is sacred in this world, please spell 'pseudo' correctly.

 

[Arikay]

Maybe you can back up your claim, and explain to us,
Why evolution does not meet the basic definition of science?

Isn't it supposed to observe only things that can be observed? Do evolutionists have a time machine? Then how can they be so sure that evolution is true?

Psuedo-science. A great big old bowl of psuedo-science. Evolution doesn't even meet the basic definition of science.

 

[MartinM]

Show me beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution is true.

Somehow I doubt that you have a reasonable definition of reasonable.

 

[Northern Christian]

Arikay,

Doesn't something have to be observable to be tested through the scientific method?

 

[troodon]

Arikay,

Doesn't something have to be observable to be tested through the scientific method?

You know what Northern Christian, I think you're right.

I've had enough of these people telling me what happened in the past. Were they there? Did they see it happen? Can they prove it to me?

NO! They didn't! They can't! They're just telling me what they think happened. They're just telling me what they hope happened because they are afraid of the truth!

So long Christianity!

 

[troodon]

In case the sarcasm was unclear, my previous post was untruthful. Northern Christian has not condemned himself (Matthew 18:6) by causing me to lose my faith because he has a very weak, poorly constructed argument that he obviously did not spend time thinking through

 

[Arikay]

Sure, why not.

We can observe the evidence left here from the past, and thus observe the past. We can then come up with hypothesis to explain this evidence and then test the hypothesis.

Matter of fact, you observe the past all the time. Every time you look at the moon or the sun you are observing their location a couple minutes ago (for the moon its probably seconds).

Arikay,

Doesn't something have to be observable to be tested through the scientific method?

 

[Northern Christian]

troodon,

we're talking about evolution, not the Gospels.

 

[ThePhoenix]

We can simply make hypothesis from the evidence and draw conclusions based on the evidence. For example if we find a crater that is a mile across, has a large residual radiation trace, shows evidence of being affected with 10,000 degree heat, and has residual uranium traces we can say that a nuke has been detonated there, without ever seeing the explosion.

So to with evolution. We have observed

Species have the potential to change.
Such changes can be large (different dog breeds) or small (moth color changes) but the potential for them to occur exists.

Evidence suggests that the earth is old, very old.

Fossils show a general progression of species moving from less complex to more complex.

Examination of the genetic code has revealed that many species that are physically different have large amounts of genetic material in common.

Many species show evidence of incompitent design. The whale has a vestigial pelvis, humans have spinal columns poorly adapted for standing upright, snakes have leg bones, etc. These might have served a purpose if the creature had a different configuration, but in the creature's current form they serve no purpose.


A partial list of the ways that the theory of evolution is verified.

 

[Vance]

What I don't understand is how someone can go their entire life believing every other conclusion of science without question or comment, then act as if the theory of evolution (a conclusion reached by the same methodology) is so blatantly and obviously unsupportable.

Why do they never question the theory of gravity? How do they accept the numerous medical theories, or the description of the atom. Have they ever seen a proton? They rely upon and assume the truths that science provides a thousand times every single day of their lives.

The telling point is that the ONLY people who disbelieve in evolution (or an old earth, for that matter) are those who have a religous reason for that disbelief. All those who approach the subject without this bias, and study it objectively, accept it as almost assuredly the true explanation of diversity of life on this planet. Those of us who are Christian simply understand the deeper Truth that God is responsible for it.

 

[troodon]

troodon,

we're talking about evolution, not the Gospels.

You can't just hold a double standard like that. Both evolution and the Gospels must be weighed for the evidence we have pertaining to their validity. Your argument against evolution is rediculous because the exact same could be said of the Gospels. What you must do is weigh the evidence, regarding both issues, before you can stand up and proudly claim, "It is false!"

That is what you are doing. You will not examine the evidence because you feel that because it happened in the past, we will never (and can never) know the truth. Why do you not hold the same standard to the Bible? Jesus had a word for people like that; hypocrites. Please do not be a hypocrite.

 

[Northern Christian]

What I don't understand is how someone can go their entire life believing every other conclusion of science without question or comment, then act as if the theory of evolution (a conclusion reached by the same methodology) is so blatantly and obviously unsupportable.

Why do they never question the theory of gravity? How do they accept the numerous medical theories, or the description of the atom. Have they ever seen a proton? They rely upon and assume the truths that science provides a thousand times every single day of their lives.

The telling point is that the ONLY people who disbelieve in evolution (or an old earth, for that matter) are those who have a religous reason for that disbelief. All those who approach the subject without this bias, and study it objectively, accept it as almost assuredly the true explanation of diversity of life on this planet. Those of us who are Christian simply understand the deeper Truth that God is responsible for it.

Vance,

There are several people who disbelieve in evolution for non-religous reasons.

 

[Northern Christian]

troodon, you are being illogic by making a connection that isn't there.

 

[Arikay]

Who?
What do they believe Evolution is?
When did they make this statement?

Vance,

There are several people who disbelieve in evolution for non-religous reasons.

 

[Northern Christian]

One of my history teachers had a friend who was skeptical of evolution, but was not a Creationist. He even wrote National Geographic about it.