Nothing changes in this forum.

[Kenny'sID]

We know that. Nobody cares. Nobody cares what you believe as long as it stays out of public school science classes.

And there you go again, saying something that is completely contrary to your actions.

If you don't care, then stop replying to me. I mean it's not as if what I think or don't think has a thing to do with it being taught in schools. Not even sure how that comment was relative lol...

 

[Speedwell]

And there you go again, saying something that is completely contrary to your actions.

If you don't care, then stop replying to me. I mean it's not as if what I think or don't think has a thing to do with it being taught in schools. Not even sure how that comment was relative lol...

It expresses my opinion, is all. Otherwise I don't care what you believe with repect to your religion. But you are suffering from some serious misunderstandings about science, which seems a shame as you could easily clear them up.

So, why do you want proof for the theory of evolution instead of evidence?

 

[bhsmte]

You're right, you can't prove it, so seems to me, YOU are the one out of luck.

Why is he out of luck?

 

[Skreeper]

Cop out, science is all about proving things out.

But you all keep trying to convince us proof is not needed for evolution, it's something we should just believe..

Hilarious

Just goes to show that you've never received a decent science education. Just talking to any scientist or teacher would clear your confusion up.

 

[Ophiolite]

Just goes to show that you've never received a decent science education. Just talking to any scientist or teacher would clear your confusion up.

If I may make a small correction to your post: "Just listening to any scientist or teacher would clear your confusion up."

Kenny seems proficient at talking. I think it's the listening skill that would benefit from some work.

 

[USincognito]

I know that this is an exercise in futility, but:


No such thing as scientific proof.
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”
One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Dr. Jay Wile, Creationist
Science Can’t Prove Anything
After all, science has proven all sorts of things, hasn’t it?

Of course it hasn’t. In fact, it is impossible for science to prove anything, because science is based on experiments and observations, both of which can be flawed. Often, those flaws don’t become apparent to the scientific community for quite some time. Flawed experiments and observations, of course, lead to flawed conclusions, so even the most secure scientific statements have never been proven. There might be gobs and gobs of evidence for them, but they have not been proven.

Dr. Douglas Theobald, not a Creationist
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method
What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms 'proof' or 'prove' in this article.

 

[Speedwell]

If I may make a small correction to your post: "Just listening to any scientist or teacher would clear your confusion up."

Kenny seems proficient at talking. I think it's the listening skill that would benefit from some work.

Well, I have a theory, that is to say a conjecture. As I said above,that, creationists are incredulous that us evos, especially Christian evos, are willing to chuck the absolute accurate proven truth of Genesis for the merely confirmed provisional truth of science. The basis of it is, I believe, is that theology proceeds by deductive logic. Its conclusions are indeed proven. Science, on the other hand, is based on inductive logic and its conclusions are confirmed, rather than proven. The conclusions of theology, being proven, have a character of certainty which Kenny cannot find in mere confirmation. He, like many creationists, resents the idea that he is to abandon the proven certainty of creationism for the provisional confirmation of science.

 

[USincognito]

Well, I have a theory, that is to say a conjecture. As I said above,that, creationists are incredulous that us evos, especially Christian evos, are willing to chuck the absolute accurate proven truth of Genesis for the merely confirmed provisional truth of science. The basis of it is, I believe, is that theology proceeds by deductive logic. Its conclusions are indeed proven. Science, on the other hand, is based on inductive logic and its conclusions are confirmed, rather than proven. The conclusions of theology, being proven, have a character of certainty which Kenny cannot find in mere confirmation. He, like many creationists, resents the idea that he is to abandon the proven certainty of creationism for the provisional confirmation of science.

Uncertainty, even an iota of it, seems to me to be terrifying for them.

 

[Ophiolite]

I know that this is an exercise in futility,

It is not futile. While some have closed ears and eyes, there are others lurking silently and reading and thinking. What you have posted and the arguments presented by yourself and others will reach some of those lurkers. Never think the effort is futile! Keep at it.

 

[Strathos]

Let's bump this thread in 10 years and see if you're right.

 

[rjs330]

So what? It's still the most reasonable inference from that evidence and much much more. What evidence would make annother inference more reasonable?

It's not the facts that in dispute. It's the interpretation. The evidence can just as easily show that all things are not the same and we don't have a common ancestor. It's how you interpret the facts.

 

[pitabread]

It's not the facts that in dispute. It's the interpretation. The evidence can just as easily show that all things are not the same and we don't have a common ancestor. It's how you interpret the facts.

Unfortunately it doesn't quite work that way.

 

[rjs330]

And that is his psychological out, he can tell himself, evolution can not be proven. Never mind, all the other scientific theories he takes advantage of, each and every day of his life are not proven either, but simply supported with evidence and evolution happens to be one of the most well evidenced.

Think it could have something to do with protecting his personal faith belief?

What unproven theories are you talking about?

 

[mark kennedy]

Unfortunately it doesn't quite work that way.

Fortunately, that's exactly how it works.

 

[rjs330]

And that is his psychological out, he can tell himself, evolution can not be proven. Never mind, all the other scientific theories he takes advantage of, each and every day of his life are not proven either, but simply supported with evidence and evolution happens to be one of the most well evidenced.

Think it could have something to do with protecting his personal faith belief?

What unproven theories are you talking about?

 

[mark kennedy]

What unproven theories are you talking about?

It's not one, it's many.

 

[mark kennedy]

What unproven theories are you talking about?

It's not one, it's many.

 

[mark kennedy]

What unproven theories are you talking about?

It's not one, it's many.

 

[mark kennedy]

What unproven theories are you talking about?

It's not one, it's many.

 

[mark kennedy]

What unproven theories are you talking about?

It's not one, it's many.

 

[USincognito]

It's not the facts that in dispute. It's the interpretation. The evidence can just as easily show that all things are not the same and we don't have a common ancestor. It's how you interpret the facts.

No, just no. You cannot "interpret" things like shared psudogenes and ERVs forming a nested hierarchy as "common design" without mental gymnastics. Common descent, however, explains them magnificently.

 

[USincognito]

duplicate

 

[USincognito]

It's not the facts that in dispute. It's the interpretation. The evidence can just as easily show that all things are not the same and we don't have a common ancestor. It's how you interpret the facts.

No, just no. You cannot "interpret" things like shared psudogenes and ERVs forming a nested hierarchy as "common design" without mental gymnastics. Common descent, however, explains them magnificently.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, just no. You cannot "interpret" things like shared psudogenes and ERVs forming a nested hierarchy as "common design" without mental gymnastics. Common descent, however, explains them magnificently.

You can't have ERVs being 8% of the human genome without some impossible assumptions either. Common descent explains nothing and assumes everything, that's how that works.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, just no. You cannot "interpret" things like shared psudogenes and ERVs forming a nested hierarchy as "common design" without mental gymnastics. Common descent, however, explains them magnificently.

You can't have ERVs being 8% of the human genome without some impossible assumptions either. Common descent explains nothing and assumes everything, that's how that works.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, just no. You cannot "interpret" things like shared psudogenes and ERVs forming a nested hierarchy as "common design" without mental gymnastics. Common descent, however, explains them magnificently.

It's not about how you interpret, it's about how ERVs become 8% of the human genome. Common descent explains nothing but assumes everything.

 

[USincognito]

What unproven theories are you talking about?

All of them. Nothing is ever proven in science and there is no such thing as scientific proof. All propositions must allow for new data that could potentially falsify them.