How can science observe the past?

[Arikay]

But was he skeptical for none religious reasons?
How long ago was this?
Did the friend understand the Theory of Evolution correctly?

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.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

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.

I'm getting a feeling of deja vu.

It appears as though the alleged conflict between the scientific method and the theory of evolution was well addressed. Then without responding to the comments, the same sentiment was repeated under the pretense that he actually addressed what was said in the other thread where answers were given once again, and ignored once again. Now here we are for the third time with the same claim that the theory of evolution and the scientific method are in conflict after being shown that this is clearly not the case. How many times...?

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

How many times...?

As many as it takes for us to pound our heads into the wall so hard that we too believe in YEC.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Show me beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution is true.

Do you have a week to spare?

I will put up three strong lines of evidence:

(1) Retro-viral insertions: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses

(2) Human Chromosome 2:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

(3) Atavistic hind limbs in whales:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1

Your honour, I ask the jury to consider whether these observations could possibly be expected had evolution not taken place as the prosecution alleges.

 

[Jet Black]

NC, science is about making observations, and then coming up with a theory to explain those observations, and then testing it wherever possible. Basically you are acalling all of science junk if you say what you are, since it is all based around observation fitting. are we to declare that supernovae do not happen, because we only see them thousands of years after they happen? are we to declare that murders do not happen because we only see the artefacts of murder? are we to declare that nothing happens because we only see it nanoseconds after it actually happens. Your poor argument is based on a terrible understanding of science, and an even worse understanding of specific sciences. please please get an education in the things you are talking about before you go round making comments like you do.

 

[JGMEERT]

NC, science is about making observations, and then coming up with a theory to explain those observations, and then testing it wherever possible.

JM: Well technically we hypothesize about observations and, if all goes well, we develop a formal theory that seeks to explain those observations, is testable, and makes predictions of observations not yet made and retrodicts solutions to past observations. But I'm nitpicking aren't I

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[Jet Black]

wel your explanation is certainly more complete

 

[fungle]

Yes

 

[Jet Black]

Yes

?

 

[fungle]

It was meant for JG. It is only trivial

 

[Data]

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

I love that. Very convincing evidence.

 

[fungle]

Hutton may had the right idea. "The present is the key to the past".How could you prove this wrong?

 

[lucaspa]

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?

How can science observe the past? By looking at the present! The present is the way it is because the past was the way it was.

Besides, the major claims of evolution: new species arising from existing species and natural selection making designs have been observed in real time.

 

[lucaspa]

I love that. Very convincing evidence.

Then you'll love this. Huxley did this about 140 years ago.

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE7/index.html

 

[ReasonableHuman]

"How can science observe the past? By looking at the present! The present is the way it is because the past was the way it was."

This has been the best response so far to your confusion, NC.
Evolution is no longer a theory, is is a fact. It is occuring right now in your own backyard, and will continue to occur on this planet as long as it exists. Species have evolved into new ones within your own lifetime, do some quick research and you will have all the proof you need. In order for any lifeform to exist, it must constantly adapt to its environment and this leads to evolution, which led to you being able to be the free-thinking upright primate that you are right now.
Skepticism over evolution can only stem from ignorance of it, which is still difficult, because you are surrounded by its products every day of your life.

 

[Northern Christian]

Mechanical Bliss, the first thread about the scientific method never saw a response that explained how evolution is arrived on using the scientific method. This thread demonstrates that evolution is not science because science can observe things, and evolution cannot be observed because it supposedly happened in the past, if at all.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Mechanical Bliss, the first thread about the scientific method never saw a response that explained how evolution is arrived on using the scientific method. This thread demonstrates that evolution is not science because science can observe things, and evolution cannot be observed because it supposedly happened in the past, if at all.

WHAT?!? That thread saw a heap of responses about exactly that subject. I'm sorry if you forgot to read the thread after it was posted, but your question was answered. In fact I'd say that given your evidence (none) that it was not arrived at using the scientific method, and the evidence that it was (a lot) then you've just undercut your own arguement. And evolution is happening now. Care to explain the bacteria who evolved the ability to eat nylon?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Mechanical Bliss, the first thread about the scientific method never saw a response that explained how evolution is arrived on using the scientific method.

You either (1) didn't read the first thread otherwise you'd see that you didn't even keep up with it and it ended with a lengthy explanation by lucaspa or (2) you're lying because you don't want to admit that this has been addressed in two previous threads started by yourself.

This thread demonstrates that evolution is not science because science can observe things, and evolution cannot be observed because it supposedly happened in the past, if at all.

Did you not even read the replies in this thread either?!?

 

[napajohn]

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.

Sir:
Gravity has properties that can be measured...evolution DOES NOT USE THE Same methodology...why the need for punctuated equilibrium if the fossil record showed a continuum from single celled to man...Does belief of evolution contradict todays science..what does evolution have to do with physics , chemical reactions of today?..Dr Bailey a 7th day adventist creationist at Loma Linda (Remember babbon heart to baby) is an accomplished and respected surgeon, yet his belief in creation or evolution makes NO difference into his ability to perform and diagnose..likewise with all scientist..does evolution play a part in the NASA program?, building of bridges, finding medical drugs?..again My being a Christian should not be the basis for denying evolution..Evolution should stand on its own merit from a Scientific standpoint as well as any other claim.

 

[napajohn]

"How can science observe the past? By looking at the present! The present is the way it is because the past was the way it was."

This has been the best response so far to your confusion, NC.
Evolution is no longer a theory, is is a fact. It is occuring right now in your own backyard, and will continue to occur on this planet as long as it exists. Species have evolved into new ones within your own lifetime, do some quick research and you will have all the proof you need. In order for any lifeform to exist, it must constantly adapt to its environment and this leads to evolution, which led to you being able to be the free-thinking upright primate that you are right now.
Skepticism over evolution can only stem from ignorance of it, which is still difficult, because you are surrounded by its products every day of your life.

Can you give specifics?"Species have evolved into new ones within your own lifetime".."you are surrounded by its products every day of your life."...like what products?