proving evolution as just a "theory"

[sfs]

Oh I see another assumptive tree branch of something. Thanks for that. Still no evidence.

I see. So by "assumptive" you mean, "I haven't got an answer"? Because that's sure what it looks like.

 

[sfs]

Notice how creationists don't even pretend to address real biological data. The whole "two different explanations for the same data" fails to survive experimental testing.

 

[lesliedellow]

Proof, as in proof.

I put my hand on the stove, I get burned, that's not only "evidence" but proof the stove will burn my hand....it is a fact, and it's easily proven.

No, it would verify your theory that hot stoves will always burn your hand when you touch them. Of course, there might come a time when it didn't burn your hand. If that happened, it would falsify your theory, and you would have to abandon it or modify it. Maybe the modified theory would say that hot stoves will always burn your hand if you haven't got an oven glove on.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So you want an experiment that you can replicate yourself? Sure, can do.

Alas, they hear what they want to hear, just as people see what they want to see...what got this whole mess started.

No...I want proof, proof positive. Show your proof and explain how it proves evolution. I ask you to explain because awhile back, before I started refusing to go off site to read this or that, and insisting we do it all here, a poster sent me to a site, and I had no idea how the paper proved evolution.

It wasn't a matter of understanding it either, I simply couldn't see it....he went ballistic and never explained. One thing I've noticed here, is when some are forced to explain, they look again, and I really believe they themselves begin to see the holes in it and they just kind of go away. Not always but I have seen it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Nope, that's just a correlation between putting your hand on a stove and burning yourself

How anyone can disagree that is proof positive is beyond me, Sarah. I'm trying to take you all as seriously as possible but some are making it very hard when even the most basic of things are treated as such.

It's as if some are saying, we aren't going to allow certain things here and you attempt to block them. Another would be, "science doesn't provide proof", meaning "We can claim evolution is fact, but don't have to prove it" Bizarre. I guess it goes without saying, that was the point of the scientific experiment that undoubtedly proved a fact...science *does* prove, and that's what I'm asking for here.

I do have to hand it to you all though, I haven't seen "science doesn't prove" brought up at all here at all, unless I missed it.

 

[pitabread]

God I can interact with. God in Jesus is a wonderful truth.
Jesus, unlike Charles Darwin, rose from the dead after three full days in a tomb.
That alone declares the truth of the gospel of salvation.

It's fascinating to me how the standard for evidence varies wildly when it comes to religious beliefs versus science.

If you started demanding the same standard of evidence for your own beliefs as you claim you do for science, you'd be an atheist faster than you could say "evolutiondidit".

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, it would verify your theory that hot stoves will always burn your hand when you touch them.

Read my last post.

You don't get to make up rules that do away with the reasonable, just to help your end of this.

 

[lesliedellow]

Alas, they hear what they want to hear, just as people see what they want to see...what got this whole mess started.

No...I want proof, proof positive. Show your proof and explain how it proves evolution. I ask you to explain because awhile back, before I started refusing to go off site to read this or that, and insisting we do it all here, a poster sent me to a site, and I had no idea how the paper proved evolution.

It wasn't a matter of understanding it either, I simply couldn't see it....he went ballistic and never explained. One thing I've noticed here, is when some are forced to explain, they look again, and I really believe they themselves begin to see the holes in it and they just kind of go away. Not always but I have seen it.

Prove to me that hot stoves will always burn your hands if you haven't got oven gloves on. I am not interested in hearing your personal anecdotes about what happened every time you tried it in the past. I want proof positive that it will always happen when anybody tries it in the future.

Can't prove it huh? Thought not.

 

[Kenny'sID]

If common descent is true, then all genetic differences between populations are the result of mutations.

If?

Is it or isn't it?

 

[lesliedellow]

Read my last post.

You don't get to make up rules that do away with the reasonable, just to help your end of this.

I don't? Why, I thought I was just following your good example.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Unlike your statements about scientific topics, you probably will not be answered by "Wrong," followed by a detailed and fact-based explanation of why you are wrong.

Goddidit on its own is an undecided and possibly undecidable question, so it isn't obviously wrong. When we come to the how Goddidit, some opinions are obviously wrong in that they fly in the face of what we know based on evidence. Other opinions, like those of say Francis Collins, are not obviously wrong.

The question was to prove a much much simpler point, but it is interesting to see what was made of it.

And no, it is not "undecided"...some of us have decided and are 100% sure. I do wish people would stop assuming they and their opinion are the only ones that matter.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I don't? Why, I thought I was just following your good example.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And no, it is not "undecided"...some of us have decided and are 100% sure. I do wish people would stop assuming they and their opinion are the only ones that matter.

Back atcha. I have also decided, and came to a different conclusion. Your opinion is not the only one that matters.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Back atcha. I have also decided, and came to a different conclusion. Your opinion is not the only one that matters.

I know.

 

[sfs]

If?

I'm posing it as a possibility since that's part of the hypothesis we're testing -- the one you say we don't have evidence for. If the differences are the result of mutations, we should see something specific. We see that something. Therefore the evidence supports common descent. That's how we test a hypothesis.

We also look for alternative explanations for the same data. That's why I asked what the creationist explanation is. You don't have one.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If?

Is it or isn't it?

You seem to be having difficulty understanding what a hypothesis is and how to test it.

sfs was setting up a perfectly normal sentence.

If my hypothesis is true, then it would produce this kind of evidence (which follows from the hypothesis).

And then we go looking to see if the evidence looks that way or not. If it does, then we lend more credence to our hypothesis. If there are no competing hypotheses, then we may feel pretty strongly about our hypothesis and consider it proven (albeit not in the mathematical sense, which is used... for mathematics).

We don't start by assuming our hypothesis is true. We consider what evidence would follow from it, and then go test it out.

sfs has shown that a particular type of evidence follows from the hypothesis of common descent, and it matches what we actually see. Your task, if you do not wish to accept that hypothesis, is to provide a competing hypothesis that can also produce and explain the same evidence.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm posing it as a possibility since that's part of the hypothesis we're testing -- the one you say we don't have evidence for. If the differences are the result of mutations, we should see something specific. We see that something. Therefore the evidence supports common descent. That's how we test a hypothesis.

We also look for alternative explanations for the same data. That's why I asked what the creationist explanation is. You don't have one.

Ok, then it's a possibility....and you know what they say, anything's possible.

I do recognize you put in some time there, so thanks for trying, but I think some of you still don't get what I'm asking for.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You seem to be having difficulty understanding what a hypothesis is and how to test it.

sfs was setting up a perfectly normal sentence.

If my hypothesis is true, then it would produce this kind of evidence (which follows from the hypothesis).

And then we go looking to see if the evidence looks that way or not. If it does, then we lend more credence to our hypothesis. If there are no competing hypotheses, then we may feel pretty strongly about our hypothesis and consider it proven (albeit not in the mathematical sense, which is used... for mathematics).

We don't start by assuming our hypothesis is true. We consider what evidence would follow from it, and then go test it out.

sfs has shown that a particular type of evidence follows from the hypothesis of common descent, and it matches what we actually see. Your task, if you do not wish to accept that hypothesis, is to provide a competing hypothesis that can also produce and explain the same evidence.

You haven't been paying attention....please, read up, and understand what I'm asking for.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm posing it as a possibility since that's part of the hypothesis we're testing -- the one you say we don't have evidence for. If the differences are the result of mutations, we should see something specific. We see that something. Therefore the evidence supports common descent. That's how we test a hypothesis.

Let me try this....You have proven evolution is a fact?

 

[sfs]

Let me try this....You have proven evolution is a fact?

What do you mean by fact? We have shown(*) that common descent is overwhelmingly likely to be true. For me, that's a fact, and I consider common descent to a fact.

(*) Not in this thread, but by the body of biological data over the last century and a half.