In all sincerity, why doesn't God simply say, "Hi"?

[riesie]

It is correct to say that there is no evidence for fully formed biological orgainisms magically poofing into existence.

...which is what creationists believe, not scientists, so it's very amusing when they bring this point up.

I assume you believe things like matter were created out of nothing by nothing?

 

[riesie]

Not following you here...



Except for all the DNA evidence of common ancestry.
And how it converges with geographic distribution of species, comparative anatomy etc.



Evolution doesn't say that that should be happening.



How is it a flaw that things that are NOT predicted by a scientific theory, are NOT happening in reality either?

The flaw here is to assume micro and macro evolution are the same. The fact micro evolution is still happening can not conclude macro evolution is or ever did.

 

[riesie]

Pretty sure we know it is incorrect - science has moved on a bit in the last 150+ years. Plus you still seem to be confused on the idea that science proves things rather than the reality that it produces useful, well tested working models.



Magical poofing into existence is the creationist version of things. Not sure why the fact that it didn't happen says anything about the theory of evolution.

What do you thing about this definition:
A scientist uses philosophy (metaphysics, logic, etc.) to interpret the data generated using science given by reality.

 

[xianghua]

That's wouldn't be a watch.
Watches don't self-replicate.

Watches are mechanical devices to tell time. They are not living or self-replicating.

Let's just label these imaginary things you talk about as "X".
Whatever X is, apparantly it can tell time. But it isn't a watch.

My pc and smartphone can tell time as well. But they aren't called a "watch" are they?
Clearly being able to tell time, is not the only criteria for something to be called a "watch".

So whatever X is, it's not a watch.



I would require a lot more information then just "it tells time and it self-replicates", to answer that question.

so if you will find this object, but with a self replicating system and DNA, you will not consider it to be a watch?:

(image from https://www.amazon.ca/Treehut-Genuine-Leather-Quality-Movement/dp/B00PG1GMH8)

 

[KCfromNC]

What do you thing about this definition:
A scientist uses philosophy (metaphysics, logic, etc.) to interpret the data generated using science given by reality.

Definition of what, exactly?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I assume you believe things like matter were created out of nothing by nothing?

You assume incorrectly. Creation 'ex nihilo' is what you believe in.

The flaw here is to assume micro and macro evolution are the same.

One is the cumulative effect of the other, just has walking a mile is the cumulative effect of taking one step at a time, or transitioning from an infant to a toddler to an adolescent and so forth is the cumulative effect of aging one day at a time.

Can you actually identify a physical barrier that would allow for microevolution, but not speciation?

[HINT: No, you can't.]

The fact micro evolution is still happening can not conclude macro evolution is or ever did.

Speciation has been observed both in the lab and in the wild. Not that direct observation is the only line of evidence. Not by far. Most of the best evidence comes from genetics.

Try putting down the creationist propaganda for a few minutes and reading what actual scientists have written on this subject. It's almost 2018. You are literate. You have internet access. There are dozens of resources literally at your fingertips, sourced to primary scientific literature. You are without excuse.

 

[Hawkins]

Speciation has been observed both in the lab and in the wild. Not that direct observation is the only line of evidence. Not by far. Most of the best evidence comes from genetics.

Try putting down the creationist propaganda for a few minutes and reading what actual scientists have written on this subject. It's almost 2018. You are literate. You have internet access. There are dozens of resources literally at your fingertips, sourced to primary scientific literature. You are without excuse.

If people choose to deny the simplest, they don't have the credibility for people to believe them further. The term science has been rewritten in order to accommodate the incompatible evolution. The rewritten definition sounds as if science is all about evidence while it's not!

======
Science is about the prediction of an end-to-end repetition. Science is accurate because it's always about something which can repeat infinitive number of times for humans to observe and most importantly to predict how it repeats to draw a conclusion. The methodology ToE employed is completely different from any other science. This is so simply because it takes millions of years for an end-to-end evolution to possibly repeat itself. We don't have that time to observe and predict how it repeats to draw any scientific conclusion.

If you implicitly claim that a human can be evolved from in the end a single cell organism, then you have to make the single-cell to human process repeats itself infinitive number of times for humans to do enough observations, and most importantly predictions on how this repeats in order to draw a scientific conclusion. That's how each and every single science works.

This is so because humans are creatures of the present. We don't have the capability to reach the past, and we don't have the capability to reach the future. It is because we have no capability to reach the future that if we can correctly and repeatedly predict how a phenomenon repeats itself into the future, we know that we hit a truth in terms of how we make use of a "theory" to predict the repetition. This is the nature of science and why it is accurate. In a nutshell, science is the making use of predictions repeatedly to identify a truth (which can repeat). ToE is a valid hypothesis in suggesting that evolution (from single cell to fully grown) can be a repeating process (of natural selection). However it's not up to the scientific accuracy as long as you can't make it repeat itself (to the extent of infinitive number of times) for the prediction of its repetition to be made correctly and repeatedly.

That said, to me the theory of common ancestry is a joke in concluding that everyone has an invisible common ancestor without knowing who it is. In terms of how things work, the genes are so if you would like that animal to have its appearance and behavior. If you want a chimp to have its current appearance and behavior, you need the genes to be so disregarding whether the genes share anything in common with that of humans. Everything else can be anything, not necessarily be a result of evolution. It can be a result of interbreeding or a mixture of interbreeding and adaptation. The difference between adaption and evolution is that species can be selected by the nature, however this may not be the way how they are brought to their current state from a single cell.

An analogy is that whenever you see someone in uniform sitting in the cockpit of a plane, you draw the conclusion that he's a pilot. This can be true however it's a pure speculation. He's a pilot when he launches and lands a plane from one airport to another repeatedly as we predict. Then he's a pilot. This what science is and how it makes a difference from the pure speculation. Similarly, when you see how nature changes a species to draw the conclusion that nature can drive a single cell to that species, it's a pure speculation. If you can predict repeatedly how a single cell turns into that species without error, only then you have a science!

 

[riesie]

Definition of what, exactly?

Oh sorry.... in reply on that science does not prove anything. This should be the definition on the correct use of science then.

 

[riesie]

That's pretty vague. Which ones disagree with the definition I linked to?

This was in reply on the rather vague answer you gave me earlier.
What in your opinion are real scientists and what is real science?

 

[riesie]

You assume incorrectly. Creation 'ex nihilo' is what you believe in.

Thanks for the friendly tips at the end of your post. Very kind of you.
Maybe you misunderstood the question. It was not on what I believe in. How did time, space and matter came into existence according to you?

 

[DogmaHunter]

so if you will find this object, but with a self replicating system and DNA, you will not consider it to be a watch?:

(image from https://www.amazon.ca/Treehut-Genuine-Leather-Quality-Movement/dp/B00PG1GMH8)

But that object doesn't have DNA nore does it reproduce.
You are asking me to put imaginary objects into imaginary categories.

Perhaps you should try and stick to the real world.

 

[xianghua]

But that object doesn't have DNA nore does it reproduce.
You are asking me to put imaginary objects into imaginary categories.

Perhaps you should try and stick to the real world.

its a thheoretical question. will you consider it to be a wtach if it had a self replicating system or not?

 

[KCfromNC]

Oh sorry.... in reply on that science does not prove anything. This should be the definition on the correct use of science then.

Seems kinda circular to define science as using science.

 

[KCfromNC]

This was in reply on the rather vague answer you gave me earlier.
What in your opinion are real scientists and what is real science?

In the context of scientific questions about evolution, practicing evolutionary biologists would seem like a good start. Could you provide a list of them who disagree with whatever it is you think they disagree about?

 

[KCfromNC]

Maybe you misunderstood the question. It was not on what I believe in. How did time, space and matter came into existence according to you?

No one knows. Some people think they do but they can't demonstrate that knowledge is actually knowledge. Oh well, people aren't perfect ... what are you gonna do?

 

[riesie]

Seems kinda circular to define science as using science.

What I mean is that the data science gives us needs to be interpreted using philosophy (like meta-physics, logic, etc..), yes?

 

[KCfromNC]

What I mean is that the data science gives us needs to be interpreted using philosophy (like meta-physics, logic, etc..), yes?

Not in my experience. The data are typically interpreted using rigorous methods which actually yield answers rather than doing philosophy on them.

 

[riesie]

Not in my experience. The data are typically interpreted using rigorous methods which actually yield answers rather than doing philosophy on them.

So you think science can do without philosophy?

 

[riesie]

In the context of scientific questions about evolution, practicing evolutionary biologists would seem like a good start. Could you provide a list of them who disagree with whatever it is you think they disagree about?

Well this would be from my point of view a list of scientists who are creationists. It's a long list. Do you want it in a post?

 

[riesie]

Not in my experience. The data are typically interpreted using rigorous methods which actually yield answers rather than doing philosophy on them.

These rigorous methods are all part of philosophy! Here's an overview:

The philosophy of science

My point is actually this. When we agree on the fact science can not do without philosophy, then two equally qualified scientists with different philosophical worldviews could very well disagree on the interpretation of the same evidence.

Why then is it that the naturalistic worldview right?


I'm very interested in your opinion on my statement.

Cheers, Ries