Prove it or remove it challenge

[Extraneous]

I'm going to quote something you said in post #275:

That right there is you stating an argument from incredulity. You are saying that because life is 'complex' (someone on the non-evolution side has yet to actually define complexity as they use it), then it must be wrong.

No, i sa its possible that its wrong. I am skeptical.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Those mutations you mention dont cause people to turn into Apes, just for example.

Of course not. That's not what evolution predicts. If a person suddenly turned into a chimp, that would falsify evolution. You don't understand evolution or how it works, which explains your incredulity.

 

[lasthero]

Even if those branches are there, that doesnt mean that they understand their meaning. I believe they are trying to understand things that are very complicated. Its easy to misinterpret the data. Thats what i believe.

Just because something is complicated doesn't mean that people can't understand it.

 

[Extraneous]

Let me ask one thing: do you have ANY degree in biological science?[/QUOTE

No, but that doesnt mean i must believe whatever they tell me does it? Am i not allowed to observe mans fallible nature, and conclude that his observations are fallible as well? I reserve the right to be skeptical.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, i sa its possible that its wrong. I am skeptical.

You did say that they were 'fallible opinions'. You do actually know that literally NO scientific theory is infallible, right? No scientist will ever say "well this is the only way this came about" (let's stick with evolution since it's the OP). Any scientist worth their salt will say "well, it might be wrong, but were 99.99% sure this is right."
The only reason evolution is touted as the way that life came about is because there is no discernible, testable evidence that shows life was created via a deity.

 

[Extraneous]

Just because something is complicated doesn't mean that people can't understand it.

It also doesnt mean that they do.

 

[Extraneous]

You did say that they were 'fallible opinions'. You do actually know that literally NO scientific theory is infallible, right? No scientist will ever say "well this is the only way this came about" (let's stick with evolution since it's the OP). Any scientist worth their salt will say "well, it might be wrong, but were 99.99% sure this is right."
The only reason evolution is touted as the way that life came about is because there is no discernible, testable evidence that shows life was created via a deity.

I believe parts of evolution theory are most likely true, yes. Such as basic biology for example. I also believe much of evolution is really just speculation built on fallible observation. Its my opinion.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, but that doesnt mean i must believe whatever they tell me does it? Am i not allowed to observe mans fallible nature, and conclude that his observations are fallible as well? I reserve the right to be skeptical.

You said: "Even if those branches are there, that doesnt mean that they understand their meaning."

If you have no degree in science, how do you know that scientists don't understand the meaning of DNA, mutations or whatever to do with evolution?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Am i not allowed to observe mans fallible nature, and conclude that his observations are fallible as well?

Sure, but scientific theories are falsifiable. There is no authority in science. When you write a paper describing your findings, you are subject to peer review where your peers will attempt to disprove your research. Evolution has passed every single test it's faced for 150 years. That's why there is a scientific consensus that evolution is the best explanation for living systems.

 

[Extraneous]

Of course not. That's not what evolution predicts. If a person suddenly turned into a chimp, that would falsify evolution. You don't understand evolution or how it works, which explains your incredulity.

Yes i know that. It supposedly takes a very long time, more than the lifetime of one individual. I know that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I believe parts of evolution theory are most likely true, yes. Such as basic biology for example. I also believe much of evolution is really just speculation built on fallible observation. Its my opinion.

But on what grounds do you base your opinion that much of evolution 'is really just speculation built on fallible observation'?

 

[Extraneous]

Sure, but scientific theories are falsifiable. There is no authority in science. When you write a paper describing your findings, you are subject to peer review where your peers will attempt to disprove your research. Evolution has passed every single test it's faced for 150 years. That's why there is a scientific consensus that evolution is the best explanation for living systems.

Yes but its not like something that can actually be observed. Its more like something where data is observed and interpreted. I believe that many parts of this theory are interpreted through speculation rather than true observable science.

 

[Extraneous]

But on what grounds do you base your opinion that much of evolution 'is really just speculation built on fallible observation'?

Well, i dont think the fossils are conclusive. However they claim to have other evidence as well. Im not confident in their ability to understand DNA. I think its a bit over their head. What else do they have?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, i dont think the fossils are conclusive. However they claim to have other evidence as well. Im not confident in their ability to understand DNA. I think its a bit over their head. What else do they have?

How are the fossils not conclusive? And as for what else they have: DNA evidence.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Yes but its not like something that can actually be observed. Its more like something where data is observed and interpreted. I believe that many parts of this theory are interpreted through speculation rather than true observable science.

Evolution can be observed. There are many experiments that have been done in the lab and in nature. A first year biology student could show you this. However, let's take a look at the human genome project. This was a 13 year study and actually ran a falsifiable test that could have shown evolution to be wrong but instead was the slam dunk of evidence that confirms common ancestry. I've put this video in this thread elsewhere but I will put it here again:

It's not speculation. Science depends on repeatable experimentation. It sounds like you don't want it to be true so you're trying to convince yourself that it isn't.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Im not confident in their ability to understand DNA. I think its a bit over their head. What else do they have?

They understand it quite well. They dedicate their entire lives to studying it. This is just you moving the goal posts because you don't want evolution to be true.

 

[Extraneous]

You said: "Even if those branches are there, that doesnt mean that they understand their meaning."

If you have no degree in science, how do you know that scientists don't understand the meaning of DNA, mutations or whatever to do with evolution?

What means they do know? Just because they have a degree? Isnt it possible that they are wrong? They are human after all. They dont even know what all the DNA is used for. Lets say that God created this world, just for argument sake. Surely God created everything from the same source, so naturally everything would be related and share DNA. WE dont know how God created it, we just know that its all related and shares DNA. Thats what i believe scientist know as well. I dont however think they actually know more than that. They speculate sure, but thats not conclusive.

 

[Extraneous]

Evolution can be observed. There are many experiments that have been done in the lab and in nature. A first year biology student could show you this. However, let's take a look at the human genome project. This was a 13 year study and actually ran a falsifiable test that could have shown evolution to be wrong but instead was the slam dunk of evidence that confirms common ancestry. I've put this video in this thread elsewhere but I will put it here again:

It's not speculation. Science depends on repeatable experimentation. It sounds like you don't want it to be true so you're trying to convince yourself that it isn't.

Of course we have common ancestry. God created everything from the same earth. That doesn't mean however that scientists understand exactly how he did it.Without watching the video, what have scientists observe evolving in the lab? Bacteria maybe? Thats not evidence. Thats just the way God created bacteria. Its supposed to mutate like that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What means they do know? Just because they have a degree? Isnt it possible that they are wrong? They are human after all. They dont even know what all the DNA is used for. Lets say that God created this world, just for argument sake. Surely God created everything from the same source, so naturally everything would be related and share DNA. WE dont know how God created it, we just know that its all related and shares DNA. Thats what i believe scientist know as well. I dont however think they actually know more than that. They speculate sure, but thats not conclusive.

Basically put: if you have no degree, then you cannot categorically say that evolution is wrong or that scientists have it wrong. It's an opinion only.
Just because scientists don't know something now, doesn't mean they won't know more in the future. And saying that God created everything is a religious opinion, which is not something backed by evidence.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

God created this world, just for argument sake. Surely God created everything from the same source, so naturally everything would be related and share DNA.

If your hypothesis is "God did it" please explain in detail how you can do repeatable experiments to show that your hypothesis is true. More importantly what test can I run in attempts to falsify your hypothesis? If your hypothesis is not falsifiable, you have to throw it out because it has no explanatory power and cannot make predictions about the natural world.