Macroevolution:

[AV1611VET]

Your fantasies are not evidence.

Neither is your paperwork.

 

[Loudmouth]

Neither is your paperwork.

The pattern of shared derived features is not paperwork. It is reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

The pattern of shared derived features is not paperwork. It is reality.

A very myopic interpretation of reality that suddenly stops at the edge of the empirical senses.

 

[Loudmouth]

A very myopic interpretation of reality that suddenly stops at the edge of the empirical senses.

I do tend to base my conclusions on thing that can be shown to exist instead of fantasies. What is wrong with that?

 

[AV1611VET]

I do tend to base my conclusions on thing that can be shown to exist instead of fantasies. What is wrong with that?

Too myopic.

 

[Loudmouth]

Too myopic.

How so?

 

[AV1611VET]

How so?

I explained how so.

It stops at the edge of the empirical senses.

I think I used a good analogy with Kylie recently.

It's like trying to see the bottom of the ocean from a hot air balloon with a pair of binoculars from a hot air balloon.

 

[Loudmouth]

I explained how so.

It stops at the edge of the empirical senses.

Why is that too myopic?

It's like trying to see the bottom of the ocean from a hot air balloon with a pair of binoculars from a hot air balloon.

We can empirically measure the sea floor, so I don't see how this is analogous.

 

[stevil]

no. it's only a belief.

Facts are beliefs too you know.

They are classified as Justified True Beliefs.

So really it comes down to how you justify your beliefs.
Science is nothing more than a method of discovery. Very little (if anything in science) is known to 100% degree of certainty, there is always some wiggle room. Science by providing falsifiable criteria can disprove hypothesis, but it can't 100% prove something.

So then allowing yourself to change from a "belief" to a "justified true belief" comes down to how you justify knowledge, this is your epistemology. If you base it on empirical evidence then you are tending towards the scientific method. The scientific method justifies the stance that the eye has evolved more than once. They have very strong evidence supporting this.

 

[AV1611VET]

They are classified as Justified True Beliefs.

In 2004, Pluto was classified as our 9th planet.

Was that a fact at one time in 2004?

In the 60s, Thalidomide was considered a prenatal wonder drug.

Was that a fact at one time in the 60s?

How about Phlogiston?

Was it a fact at one time that the Titanic was unsinkable?

 

[stevil]

In 2004, Pluto was classified as our 9th planet.

Was that a fact at one time in 2004?

In the 60s, Thalidomide was considered a prenatal wonder drug.

Was that a fact at one time in the 60s?

How about Phlogiston?

Was it a fact at one time that the Titanic was unsinkable?

The great thing about the scientific method is that they always put their neck on the line.
When they create a well formed hypothesis or theory, they include falsifiable criteria.

Think of science as a self correcting progressive method of discovery.
They come up with evidence and they create a model or a narrative that plausibly matches the evidence, they use that model to predict further observations, and if those further observations don't match the model they then change the model. It is a way of fine tuning your understanding of the universe, ever increasing your understanding of it.

With regards to the Theory of Evolution, which part of it do you disagree with? Do you agree that our offspring contain a copy of our DNA code? (descent), do you agree that sometimes that code contains errors (with modification) do you agree that some creatures with certain features are more likely to survive and procreate given the environment that they exist? (survival of the fittest).
Do you agree that the world has many different environments, that over time the environments themselves change?

 

[stevil]

A very myopic interpretation of reality that suddenly stops at the edge of the empirical senses.

It's important to know where that edge is, to know the difference between empirical reality vs imagination. And that is what scientists do. They walk on that edge. They take what is known and they imagine what MIGHT be known, they then test in order to expand what IS known.

 

[Loudmouth]

In 2004, Pluto was classified as our 9th planet.

Was that a fact at one time in 2004?

In the 60s, Thalidomide was considered a prenatal wonder drug.

Was that a fact at one time in the 60s?

How about Phlogiston?

Was it a fact at one time that the Titanic was unsinkable?

You deride facts while citing facts. How interesting.

 

[AV1611VET]

The great thing about the scientific method is that they always put their neck on the line.
When they create a well formed hypothesis or theory, they include falsifiable criteria.

I stopped right here, chief.

Would you please answer my questions?

They're good ones.

 

[Loudmouth]

I stopped right here, chief.

Would you please answer my questions?

They're good ones.

Is it a fact that thalidomide causes birth defects?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's important to know where that edge is, to know the difference between empirical reality vs imagination. And that is what scientists do. They walk on that edge. They take what is known and they imagine what MIGHT be known, they then test in order to expand what IS known.

Here's a boundary I like to use on educated people ...

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

What scientist(s) have walked that edge?

Or ... as I suspect ... do they not even recognize that as a viable edge?

 

[AV1611VET]

You deride facts while citing facts. How interesting.

What do you mean?

I can't get anyone here to call them facts.

And I've been trying for years.

Do you seriously think a scientist is going to tell the truth here?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is it a fact that thalidomide causes birth defects?

I stopped right here, chi...

Oh, wait.

Nevermind.

 

[Loudmouth]

I stopped right here, chi...

Oh, wait.

Nevermind.

Are you saying that you don't accept the fact that thalidomide causes birth defects?

 

[stevil]

Here's a boundary I like to use on educated people ...

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

What scientist(s) have walked that edge?

Or ... as I suspect ... do they not even recognize that as a viable edge?

Scientists are people too you know. Many of them are Christians and have probably read and thought about the passage you quoted above.

The passage isn't science, but being people, scientists also do things outside of science.
Myself, I can't make any sense of your quote, or any relevance to our topic, but then again I'm not a Christian and have never been one.