proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Hieronymus]

Not likely. The oldest human remains found to date are from Morocco and they're 300,000 years old. How do you reconcile that?

Yeah, because the dating methods are infallible...

 

[gaara4158]

Off topic and just a cheap shot.
Ridiculing doesn't make the world a place without people in power conspiring things to secure and or improve their position or that of their descendents.
It doesn't change the fact that they tend to be religious and not Christian either.

It's not unfair to demand evidence for claims of conspiracies. It's common practice. Sorry you feel ridiculed by standard inquiry.

Then why do they make such an effort to convince us of naturalistic beliefs?
Or hadn't you noticed that yet?

What do you mean by "naturalistic beliefs?"

 

[gaara4158]

Yeah, because the dating methods are infallible...

Dates are approximate, of course, but when multiple independent methods converge on the same range of dates, you can be fairly confident they're accurate.

 

[Hieronymus]

My point is that similar DNA, genes, traits, etc indicates similar ancestry. There are all kinds of evidence -- archaeological, biological, paleological, forensic, etc -- that all life on Earth comes from a single common ancestor.

If that were so, why doesn't it convince me at all?
But is it so?
No it isn't.
You don't seem to realise how this works in reality.
And this is how it works most everywhere by the way.
People start out with a conclusion they try to either prove, or convince others of.
So they use evidence that supports their conclusion and sometimes even forge evidence.
Evidence indicating the opposite is usually ignored.

The fact that our genes are compatible with chicken genes (that you can just stick one in and watch it work) is actually proof that we share common ancestry.

No it proves common manufacturer.
Obviously it doesn't prove either of those, but both sides can use it for their case.
But, unfortunately for the evolutionists there are also major differences between kinds and phyla etc..
They then have to explain this with dead unconscious forces and processes that occur naturally.
This is where they fail.
They have no viable explanation, they can only say: "Evolution did it".
That's not science, is it?

I never said it happened by chance. Or that chickens had hands. The implication of what I was saying was that chickens' wings, and our hands, evolved from the same structure over time.

So you did say it happened by chance then.
Because the ToE works with random mutations that weren't corrected but somehow became a large part of the gene pool.
If you say the mutations are not random but guided or caused by some intelligence, you're not subscribing to the ToE anymore.

I believe in evidence. It's kind of important, you know.

Yes, very cute.

It's a book on comparative anatomy and the history of life on Earth, from the very first cell. Part of it involves the story of how life first came from the ocean, and then out onto land -- exploring new places that no life-forms had yet seen before. It's pretty cool stuff.

It's a fairy tale.

All it did was talk about facts, though; I'm the one with the romantic imagery.


All I need to be convinced is evidence and logic. And that's what they've got.

Well, they convinced you allright...

Uh... Darwin was actually a pretty widely accepted scientist in his time. It hasn't been dismissed; in fact, the case for it has been hardened by quite a lot.

You must be joking.
It seems to me you haven't ever heard anything from the other side of this controversy.
So in fact you're doing it again: arguing from ignorance.
I don't mean to be rude, but that's what it looks like.

I give up this discussion with you.
May God bless you with hunger for truth.

 

[Hieronymus]

It's not unfair to demand evidence for claims of conspiracies. It's common practice. Sorry you feel ridiculed by standard inquiry.

Yeah, that must be it. (yawn..)

What do you mean by "naturalistic beliefs?"

naturalism:
the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.

 

[Hieronymus]

...

 

[gaara4158]

Yeah, that must be it. (yawn..)

Because you don't have evidence. Got it.

naturalism:
the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.

So you're prepared to defend the assertion that the majority of scientists are pushing philosophical naturalism? Let's hear it. I suspect you don't know the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Science is a discipline designed to eliminate all biases

You're making science something it's not again.

People are responsible for forming the opinions of the natural, (also science or in short, our opinion on what something means) as science does nothing. And all too often what a thing ("thing" as in "people", people are the doers, science does nothing) was "designed" (designated really) to do, or someone "says" it's designed to do, can go awry for many reasons, as in prejudice, agenda, human error, or flat out cooking the books.

Science cannot be "designed" to do anything, but people can be designated to, either on their own or by order, that's all. We/they (foul-able people) look at the natural, study it and draw conclusion on what it means, right or wrong, and calling is "science" doesn't make it right.

Actually, the comment "science is designed" "science does" "science proves" pretty much means nothing. So please people, stop holding science up there as if it's an end all that cannot be argued with.

Disclaimer: I know most of you don't realize what you are doing there or if you necessarily intend that, and you are far from the only ones doing it. I believe the poster I am replying to does intend "science" as I am saying it is not.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If that were so, why doesn't it convince me at all?

-_- because people hate to be shown to be wrong, especially about something they have held on to for long periods of time.

People start out with a conclusion they try to either prove, or convince others of.
So they use evidence that supports their conclusion and sometimes even forge evidence.

You forge evidence in science, and you get kicked out of the scientific community. To the point that if, say, a Nobel prize winning chemist forged results on the safety of a newly produced chemical, they'd be lucky to be able to teach high school level chemistry afterwards.

Evidence indicating the opposite is usually ignored.

No, there are plenty of people that make it their goal to challenge evolution without being garbage humans that work at Answers in Genesis and make money off of lying. Also, I wouldn't call creationism the "opposite" of evolution.

No it proves common manufacturer.

Nope, because designers can design things to be dissimilar if they want, or imitate others. And groups of designers can collaborate to produce multiple similar designs.

 

[Hieronymus]

Because you don't have evidence. Got it.

I don't have it ready as a cut and paste block of text, no.
And you knew this already before you pretended to ask for it, so please, just be reasonable.
Or do you really need this kind of 'defence' to convince yourself that there are no conspiracies?
Come on...

So you're prepared to defend the assertion that the majority of scientists are pushing philosophical naturalism? Let's hear it.

I once started a topic with quotes from respected scientists admitting just that.
It was a page full of quotes that shows they have made the decission or submit themselves and their work to naturalistic ideas.
It's no secret, you're apparently just not aware of it, because it's not repeated by the opinion makers.
But i'm sure you can agree a guy like Dawkins is a clear example of this attitude.

I suspect you don't know the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.

I don't even believe you really suspect that.

 

[Audacious]

You're making science something it's not again.

People are responsible for forming the opinions of the natural, (also science or in short, our opinion on what something means) as science does nothing. And all too often what a thing ("thing" as in "people", people are the doers, science does nothing) was "designed" (designated really) to do, or someone "says" it's designed to do, can go awry for many reasons, as in prejudice, agenda, human error, or flat out cooking the books.

Science cannot be "designed" to do anything, but people can be designated to, either on their own or by order, that's all. We/they (foul-able people) look at the natural, study it and draw conclusion on what it means, right or wrong, and calling is "science" doesn't make it right.

Actually, the comment "science is designed" "science does" "science proves" pretty much means nothing. So please people, stop holding science up there as if it's an end all that cannot be argued with.

Disclaimer: I know most of you don't realize what you are doing there or if you necessarily intend that, and you are far from the only ones doing it. I believe the poster I am replying to does intend "science" as I am saying it is not.

Science actually does have tools in it to eliminate bias, though -- primarily peer review and scientific consensus.

It's not perfect, of course, but it's there.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So no comment on the actual evidence, just the usual creationist cop outs...

I thought I made my point, it's evidence to you, not me.

All evidence here, after examination has fallen apart, and honestly, unless someone can honestly say they have proof positive of evolution, I stopped looking at it. IOW I'm past what is evidence to you but will still look at something bigger or even a claim of something more, a major breakthrough of absolute proof..

Was yours proof positive of evolution?

 

[bhsmte]

What good is your Genesis account if you have to adjust your interpretation every time new scientific discoveries come out? Why not just go with the science?

Here is a reality:

Science has never had to adapt to religion in how they go about their work. Religion on the other hand..............

 

[Kenny'sID]

If you think that's reasonable, I'd hate to see what you think is unreasonable.

OK

Again, the fact that the scientific theory of evolution doesn't require one to renounce their faith

You all can say that till the cows come home but it doesn't make it so. It makes the bible a lie and if you make the bible a lie, you make God a lie.

Then comes all the double talk about perception of scripture, but just not buying it.

 

[pitabread]

You all can say that till the cows come home but it doesn't make it so. It makes the bible a lie and if you make the bible a lie, you make God a lie.

Then comes all the double talk about perception of scripture, but just not buying it.

That's a conversation you'll have to have with your fellow Christians, since clearly they don't all share your opinion.

Regardless, the fact that Christians can hold their beliefs and accept the Theory of Evolution as valid science shows that the theory of Evolution is clearly not about denial of God or faith.

 

[Speedwell]

OK



You all can say that till the cows come home but it doesn't make it so. It makes the bible a lie and if you make the bible a lie, you make God a lie.

Then comes all the double talk about perception of scripture, but just not buying it.

No, all it does is make Genesis 1-11 something other than 100% accurate literal history--which I don't believe god intended it to be anyway.

 

[The Times]

I'll use the scientific definition - because that's what we're discussion. Science.

I will only consider it a scientific definition, if it has the backing of consistent applied mathematical modelling, that I as an Engineer can apply in the real world to the particular species, to which the term speciation is applied by Evolutionist fictional authors of childrens picture books.

You complain about use of the term 'species', and then raise fictitious terms like "neomorphing" and "xenomorphing"? Please provide definitions of both terms, with examples of both occurring in reality.

These are not fictitious terms, because when you convert from one species to another over a claimed period of millions of millions of years, then you will scientifically expect to get countless of death cycles of half formed hybridised sea and land based mammal neomorphs before life finds a way in realising intermediate xenomorphs, which are short lived half and half hybrids of sea and land based mammals, that eventuates to that particular land based species. This also applies vice versa from land to sea base. Things don't happen overnight, when one species converts to a totally different species, according to Darwin's defintion of evolution of species.

If you really want to challenge the observation of speciation in the Galapagos finches - take it up with the Grants. Here are some references for you - enjoy the reading.

Permitting time, I will delive critically into these books, however enjoyment, I will not anticipate, because I am an Engineer and I need concrete applied mathematics to validate scientific reasoning.

I'll use the scientific definition - because that's what we're discussing. Science. Not English literature.

Science, English and Maths go hand in hand, did they not teach you this at school?

Science cannot be definitive if not firmly grounded consistently by Maths and if the proper English terminoligies are not applied, then we have failed both Maths and Science.

You complain about use of the term 'species', and then raise fictitious terms like "neomorphing" and "xenomorphing"? Please provide definitions of both terms, with examples of both occurring in reality.

These are not fictitious terms, but would be firmly grounded in expected scientific findings and should be theoretically backed by mathematics modelling of the conversion of one species to another, that is a sea based to a land based and vice versa. No conversion is expected to take place without numerous intermediate hybrids which move from dead chance models to short lived models to then fully formed land based species and vice versa. We would not expect one species to convert to another the first time, as a fully formed mammal. If Evolutionists think that a fully formed whale can be converted over millions of millions of years to a monkey in discrete whole steps or tip toe from one species to another, then there would a place for it in fictional childrens book, but that is all.

Cool. As I've done none of the above, then you'll presumable keep interacting with me.

Sure.

Cool. As I've done none of the above, then you'll presumable keep interacting with me.

Sure.

Some speciation events are rapid, some speciation events are gradual. Hence, why there was a very long, very intense debate within the scientific community about punctuated equilibrium vs gradualism.

Where is the consistent mathematical modelling to back up each term equilibrium and gradualism, in the scope of observable real world?

You find nada, nothing!

The terms are being used without any recourse to English or Mathematics and this is a pseudo science at best.

Nature is highly complex with multiple mechaisms operating at different speeds and scales.

Sure, show me the differential equations that model these speeds and scales. YOU DON'T EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE IN HEARSAY, DO YOU?

There are at least five observed types of speciation that I'm aware of that have been observed, either in the wild, in the lab or via the result of human intervention.

Show us the mathematically real world modelling that accompanies those five observed types.

You see friends pseudo science never applies Maths or the proper use of English terms and this is inherent with evolution theory.

I'm sure there are more - as my knowledge on the topic is that of an interested lay-level enthusiast with a year of tertiary level biology.

Show the Maths friend.

Speciation, the origin of novel species, is a complex and multilayered process that has remained hard to understand for empiricists and theoreticians alike. Researchers have dedicated much effort to pinpointing the factors and conditions that are responsible for some taxa diversifying rapidly while others linger in a speciation stasis. Only now are we realizing that it is the coupling of different intrinsic (e.g. natural history, genetics) and extrinsic (e.g. climate, habitat, behavioral interference) factors that produces the speciation momentum of adaptive radiations

Whenever I read a statement hard to understand, I take it as a disclaimer from the author that he really doesn't know what the something (pun intended) is going on.

I back up my pun by saying that there is no mathematical grounding of what is being asserted and the disclaimer is just another attempt to say that we cannot mathematically model it because we don't know what the something (pun intended) is going on.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yeah, because the dating methods are infallible...

Correct.

 

[gaara4158]

I don't have it ready as a cut and paste block of text, no.
And you knew this already before you pretended to ask for it, so please, just be reasonable.
Or do you really need this kind of 'defence' to convince yourself that there are no conspiracies?
Come on...

Of course conspiracies happen. That’s not license to label everything you don’t like a conspiracy. If you’re not prepared to provide evidence of any conspiracy in particular on demand, then at the very least you need to substantiate your claim that evolution is a conspiracy. You can’t use a conspiracy claim to dismiss evidence of evolution then refuse to defend your conspiracy theory. That’s just not reasonable.

I can’t get multiple quotes to work properly on mobile, but to the rest of your reply: cool story. I now suspect even more strongly that you do not recognize the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. I don’t doubt that there are some scientists who positively assert PN, but it’s not a requirement and I’d be very surprised to hear it’s the majority given more than half of scientists believe in some kind of higher power. I suspect the quotes in your thread promoted MN, not PN. I suspect within the thread you’re referencing you were corrected several times but never accepted it.

I’ll just be very clear about this. Science is only capabale of investigating the natural world. The natural world is all that can be known. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible for some other realm to exist. It’s just impossible to know about.

 

[The Times]

Its perfectly sensible. For you to call in incoherent means you don't understand it, it does call for a little abstract reasoning. It is my opinion that much of the opposition to evolution comes from people for whom the basic concepts are simply over their head. Can't help that.

I'll quote the introduction paper on cichlids I referenced earlier:

Speciation, the origin of novel species, is a complex and multilayered process that has remained hard to understand for empiricists and theoreticians alike.

In respect to the disclaimer statement made by the preposed Evolution Theory experts in the field, to that of your statement....

"people for whom the basic concepts are simply over their head. Can't help that."

It really shows that the Evolution experts who make claims and have a disclaimer of "hard to understand" emperically through mathematics, is another way of saying it is over our heads or that we know absolutely something (pun intended) about it. So go figure, pseudo scientists or should I say sciencetologists.