Why evolution isn't scientific

[Justatruthseeker]

Evolution only works on paper.

Man, are you ever generous...... Well, ok, I guess it does work on paper when you draw imaginary lines to imaginary missing common ancestors and connect them with imaginary lines to other distinct species in order to show continuation.... it just requires that you imagine common ancestors for every single creature on every single tree....

 

[Occams Barber]

Sure.

1. Explain how dinosaurs were on the Ark, if they were gone before Noah showed up.

2. Explain how Noah could have sent a raven and a dove out of the Ark, if dinosaurs gave rise to avian dinosaurs. In other words, explain how dinosaurs and birds co-existed on the Ark.

When did you stop beating your wife?
OB

 

[Steven Wood]

Well, I haven't read enough of your posts to know if you do indeed understand what is being said or not, but honestly, most evolution deniers who say that, really don't understand what is being said, scientific jargon or not. It's why you see proponents of evolution saying so often that deniers are making strawmen arguments. They are literally arguing against a caricature version of evolution, not evolution itself.

As for hypothesizing quantum entanglement explaining prayer and the observer effect, god...it seems to me that it is more hopeful thinking that things we don't yet fully understand will somehow be the proof of god's existence. History is full of this thinking, and EVERY time we have actually come to understand the phenomenon, it has been a natural, rather than supernatural, explanation.

I'd be happy if these were the exception to the rule. If there is a god, I want to know. But the track record has not been good.

I have no respect for people that make assumptions without knowledge of a subject so I really try not to do that. As I said I'll admit that I could know more like everything but I do know enough to form an opinion. Like I've said I don't believe things that I cant see is at least based in common sense, like everyone. Honestly I cannot find a church or have a theosophical discussion because 99 percent of stuff that almost all Christians believe or not only wrong but they cant even explain why they believe it. I realize that it isn't irrefutable evidence and not enough is known about the field to use it for any debate purpose but it is pretty awesome hearing that scientists are surprised that with every revelation, it continues to open the possibility of God. I really think that Humans will never truly be able to be proven anything. If people want something a certain way, nothing will change their minds

 

[Steven Wood]

The OP has a history of posting erroneous claims, getting into prolonged discussions whereby it is carefully and patiently explained why the claim is erroneous, and then reposting the same claims like the prior discussions never happened.

Myself and many others have had such discussions with the OP and I have no more patience for it. Their claim is wrong and that they are incapable of learning why it is wrong isn't my problem. But if they are going to keep posting in this manner, I will call them out on it.

I see where you are coming from and apologize for jumping to conclusions

 

[pitabread]

I see where you are coming from and apologize for jumping to conclusions

No worries, it's all good.

 

[46AND2]

If people want something a certain way, nothing will change their minds

I disagree. That depends on the person. I tried to fight off my deconversion for more than a decade. I wanted it one way, and became convinced of another.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So are you saying that just because they are scientist they are incapable of lying for the reasons of gaining fame and grants?

I'm sure sfs recognises that scientists are humans and therefor very capable of dishonesty and manipulation in hopes of 5 minutes of fame.

It is, however, extremely absurd to think that that is what 99.99% of biologists etc have been doing for the past 200 years.

Note that I said "5 minutes" of fame. Because those that lie and manipulate results in science are sniffed out sooner or later. That's the beauty of science.... nobody takes your word for it. Everybody doubts your results. And even if they don't, you can't move forward with false data. New research always builds on previous research. If the previous research is false, then the new research will hit a wall and the falsehoods of what came before it will be exposed.

ie: if you lie about for example gravity and escape velocities, then space probes won't reach orbits. If you lie about relativity, then GPS won't work. If you lie about atoms, then nukes won't explode. If you lie about how genetics works, then parenthood testing won't work.

But all these things apparantly DO work. So yea.....

My belief has always been that nonsense is nonsense no matter who is spewing it and common sense is not all that common.

I absolutely agree. But here's the thing..... how do you recognise that something is nonsense? You'ld have to support / prove such assertions. Merely arguing from religious arguments is not going to do that.

I have no problem understanding things especially if its a dumbed down, abridged version. Sounds to me like the OP know a little something about it though. I tell you this though, I have a hypothetical question that I'd like you to answer.

The OP has proven on multiple occasions, actually in almost every post he makes on the topic, that:
- he has no clue on how evolution actually works
- he doesn't want to have a clue on how evolution actually works
- he is an intellectually dishonest religious fundamentalist who ignores all objections and explanations that doesn't fit his religious agenda.

No, I can tell you that he's about the last person you would want to listen to, when your goal is to gain information and understanding concerning 21st century biology.

Enough proper resources online for you to go through.
Getting your info from the author of this thread, is like going to your car mechanic to have him look at a lumb in your armpit instead of an oncologist.

 

[DogmaHunter]

yet another comment wich dealing with the writer instead of dealing with the facts. if you can show why im wrong- be my guest.

People have been showing your wrong for months.
yet here you are, repeating the same nonsense / falsehoods that's been corrected and explained a thousand times over

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you understand the entire Bible enough to discredit it and label it as false compared to "logical" science?

The bible is a religion, not science, which isn't backed by rational evidence of reality.
What is asserted without evidence, can be rejected without evidence.

Before you answer I'll give you a hint about what your response should be. If you say you do then you will know that there are a few passages that pose the question who knows the mind of God and who was there and the beginning or creation. Now if you say yes you'll know that that passage proves you'd be lying. If you say no the you are not educated enough for your criticism to mean anything let alone have the right to demean another.

In other words, "heads I win, tails you lose!" and all that, based on a religious text that requires faith to believe it, written in the bronze age by ignorant sheep herders that didn't even know the earth orbits the sun.

Colour me unimpressed.

If you think I am purposely being insulting you should learn that your words have consequences and may hurt others as well.

I don't think you are being purposely insulting.
I do think you are confused and acting on very bad intel.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I never assume and always ask permission lol. If you look at a house or any building for that matter, would you say that the materials and the exact length and quantity of each material needed spontaneously came together over time and the building happened all on its own, or would you say common sense would prevail over nonsense and there was a blueprint, the material was cut and ordered, and someone built it? it may sound like a very absurd question but if you really break it down and think about it, it is the explanation of evolution, just simplified and made to sound dumb and obvious . Which would you say was more likely though?

It is an absurd question because it's a completely different subject.

Buildings aren't living organisms that reproduce with variation and which compete for limited resources. If you remove all the properties that make the thing subject to a certain process, then yes, the process doesn't apply. Derp.


This is the equivalent of arguing against gravity by pointing out that hammers don't fall down aboard the international space station.

It's a nonsense objection that doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sure.

1. Explain how dinosaurs were on the Ark, if they were gone before Noah showed up.

2. Explain how Noah could have sent a raven and a dove out of the Ark, if dinosaurs gave rise to avian dinosaurs. In other words, explain how dinosaurs and birds co-existed on the Ark.

Explain why you hit your wife.


I can ask loaded questions too...

 

[DogmaHunter]

What facts would you like me to learn? something that backs you up or me. Is it common sense that if you stick a fork in an outlet you'll get shocked or is it just my opinion?

It is common sense ONLY because you already know and understand things like electricity, forks, outlets and what happens when you combine all three.

Common sense only works insofar as your a priori knowledge is correct.
Common sense can only deal with those things that you already know and understand.

Before Einstein, "common sense" lead us to conclude that the flow of time would be the same everywhere and a constant in all instances. Relativity thought us that speed and gravity have an impact on the flow of time relative to observers. Today, that is "common sense". So "common sense" that nobody thinks about building a GPS satelite where the internal atomic clocks aren't carefully calibrated to accomodate for the relativistic effects caused by the speed at which they orbit the earth.

"common sense", in other words, will not help you in getting answers concerning things that are unknown or that you simply are ignorant about.

 

[Jimmy D]

The counterargument is evolution is found to be false all the time... but that is the process which the makes the scientific method so great! in that once we learn something new/some thing old was wrong in the theory we change taking us one step closer to the 'truth.' For 'those guys' being found false or having found fault in the theory is proof that it is a working theory..

Yeah I know garbage.

Here's the thing you guys need to press. that there are two primary forms of 'science and scientific theory. applied sciences are the real word sciences that have proven uses and applications, that make things like computers and cell phones work. then you have fringe or speculatory science. this is the black hole dark matter time travel (use to be called science fiction a few decades ago) even darwinism, anything that did not have a practical real world application. use to be anything speculatory in science was segregated so as not to be mixed with known/ appliblical science. So as not to give any undue legitimacy to the theoretical sciences. for what ever reason sometime in the 90 push to combine all science into one category. Now you will even hear people say the same science behind darwin is the same science behind your computer... No! do not let this stand. Rather than say darwinism is unfalsifiable, say it is just one of several scientific explanations of the fossil record. and then show it takes faith to believe in darwinism over say: Devolution. It states that life here was transplanted/seeded here at some point in the past, and everything lived together all at once, and as the climate changed species began to die off, rather than evolving the species who died could not keep up with planetary change or exposural/elemental change. Which is why we have these huge extensional events and why not all species from certain eras SURVIVED! Devolution fills in far more scientifically than evolution ever did. This would also explain why certain older species of plants work better with augmented/hydroponic light than the real thing!

Again a real theory based in 'science' but this one is laughed at while the other isn't? show the triviality in it all how one's legitimacy is held on by a thread and shw what holds it all together is faith in fact which is, not truth.

I'm surprised no one has addressed this post, although maybe that's due to the fact that your impenetrable writing style (I'm being polite there by the way).

Here's the thing you guys need to press. that there are two primary forms of 'science and scientific theory. applied sciences are the real word sciences that have proven uses and applications, that make things like computers and cell phones work. then you have fringe or speculatory science. this is the black hole dark matter time travel (use to be called science fiction a few decades ago) even darwinism, anything that did not have a practical real world application. use to be anything speculatory in science was segregated so as not to be mixed with known/ appliblical science. So as not to give any undue legitimacy to the theoretical sciences. for what ever reason sometime in the 90 push to combine all science into one category. Now you will even hear people say the same science behind darwin is the same science behind your computer... No! do not let this stand.

I'm afraid that that just isn't true, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are speaking from a position of ignorance rather than dishonesty. I suggest that you have a look at these websites which describes some of the practical applications you claim don't exist.

http://www.scottcarroll.org/_dbase_upl/EvApp_2011_3.pdf

http://www.evmeded.org/core-concepts/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation

Rather than say darwinism is unfalsifiable

No, I won't, this has been addressed elsewhere in the thread.

say it is just one of several scientific explanations of the fossil record.

No, I won't say that either. There are NO other viable explanations of the fossil record, scientific or otherwise.

and then show it takes faith to believe in darwinism over say: Devolution. It states that life here was transplanted/seeded here at some point in the past, and everything lived together all at once, and as the climate changed species began to die off, rather than evolving the species who died could not keep up with planetary change or exposural/elemental change. Which is why we have these huge extensional events and why not all species from certain eras SURVIVED! Devolution fills in far more scientifically than evolution ever did. This would also explain why certain older species of plants work better with augmented/hydroponic light than the real thing!

No it wouldn't explain anything, it's pure fantasy, a ten year old child glancing at a simplified representation of the fossil record would immediately perceive the flaws in this argument.

Not to mention the fact that we can observe evolution in action in real time..

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2009/12/feed-bird-split-species

Again a real theory based in 'science' but this one is laughed at while the other isn't? show the triviality in it all how one's legitimacy is held on by a thread and shw what holds it all together is faith in fact which is, not truth.

So now you can see that the Theory of Evolution has real world applications, that work, are you willing to reconsider your view?

 

[Turkana]

So are you saying that just because they are scientist they are incapable of lying for the reasons of gaining fame and grants?

Certainly there are scientists that lie and make up things or get biased because they are paid for their work and want to please their sponsors. Or simply their ambitions to become famous take them for a ride.

Scientists are almost humans, don't they!

The point is you must differentiate between scientists as individual persons who indeed don't ignore what makes them human and science as an institution.

Science as an institution is based on a few, rather simple principles:

1. there is fierce organized competition among scientists. When scientist A makes a claim, many others are happy to overthrow it and come up with their own ideas.
2. science has a strict methodology. When you compromise it in your study, principle 1 will kick in and other are happy to point you out to your flaws or errors.
3. In science observational evidence prevails. When doctrine and observed facts contradict, off goes doctrine. When an individual scientist can't get rid of his doctrine while the observations falsify his contentions, principle 1 applies another scientists gladly will "help him a hand".
4. in science you are only allowed to introduce hypotheses that are falsifiable. That means you must only deal with observable phenomena when constructing your explanatory model. Also the proposed mechanisms that explain the causal relationships between the phenomena must be observable on their own.

For instance, the mechanisms of evolution are genetic mutation, natural selection and endosymbiosis. They explain the phenomenon at stake, the change in biodiversity over time. First of all the phenomenon (change in biodiversity) must be observable and the mechanisms supposedly causing it (genetic mutation, natural selection and endosymbiosis).
Also the hypotheses must be formulated in a fashion of maximal vulnerability for observational falsification. The latter implies very detailed and exact and flawless definitions. For instance, in the example above: change in biodiversity must be defined in a way it's observable and in a way it's prone to falsification. That leads to operational definitions like "change in biodiversity is the number of species counted in the fossil record in a distinct geological layer", which needs further defining of "species" and "distinctness of geological layers".
​

When a scientist fails to provide such falsifiable, exact and measureable model, principle 1 applies and many others will be eager to correct such flaws.
​

Science is organized and institutionalized doubt and skepticism.

​

 

[John Bowen]

a scientific theory is a theory that we can test. mean it can be falsified. the problem with evolution is that it cant be test. for instance: some evolutionists (like dawkins and others) claiming that if we will find even a single out of place fossil- evolution will be false. but we actually found many such fossils like this one:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180801182438.htm

but as you can guess- they just push back the evolution of the creature and dont claim that evolution is false. the problem is that in this way any fossil will not falsify evolution. other evolutionists claimed that if we will find more shared ervs with far species than close species evolution will be false. but in this case they can just claim for convergent evolution or convergent loss or even ils. so even such a case will not be a problem for evolution, and therefore its not a scientific theory by definition. as a general note: english isnt my native so i may not understand some words here and there in general. thanks.

 

[John Bowen]

If you study Quantum Physics you get scientific proof . that after eighty years of experiments that the theory of evolution is like looking at a iceberg's tip and thinking that's all there is.

 

[Steven Wood]

It is common sense ONLY because you already know and understand things like electricity, forks, outlets and what happens when you combine all three.

Common sense only works insofar as your a priori knowledge is correct.
Common sense can only deal with those things that you already know and understand.

Before Einstein, "common sense" lead us to conclude that the flow of time would be the same everywhere and a constant in all instances. Relativity thought us that speed and gravity have an impact on the flow of time relative to observers. Today, that is "common sense". So "common sense" that nobody thinks about building a GPS satelite where the internal atomic clocks aren't carefully calibrated to accomodate for the relativistic effects caused by the speed at which they orbit the earth.

"common sense", in other words, will not help you in getting answers concerning things that are unknown or that you simply are ignorant about.

Mans concept of common sense is based on research and fact, I will give you this but It is also common sense to accept the fact the we do not know everything. I'll be the first to admit that we do not not know the reason, mindset, or science of God, but also commonsense dictates that even if man knows half of everything there is still half of what we don't know.That disproves your statement. Science proves that what we held as common sense years ago has been proven wrong but also what we held as "fringe" science years ago is legitimate now. Science and Christianity alike should both agree that we don't know everything nor can we explain everything.Thunder was explained as gods in the past, we know better now Just as new fields of science like quantum proves that what we knew as fact, isn't fact and we cannot explain what we thought we could anymore. And as any reasonable Christian will say that even though we know that God created man, we don't know how. Just as theories that many people falsely hold and teach as fact i.e.big bang and evolution, may sound like common sense but isn't and can't be proven simply because common sense dictates that we don't know what caused it. One key truth that both beliefs hold to though is the law that in order for something to be proven true, it has to be constant. God holds himself to the laws he made in order for them to work just as science holds themselves to the laws of consistency for a belief to be fact.A problem I have though is the argument science used to discredit God once before, they are using for an excuse now and that just isn't common sense. Science can not ask who created God to argue for materialism and then, excuse thing as random by saying "well some things just are. What's good for one need to be good for the other.

 

[Steven Wood]

It is an absurd question because it's a completely different subject.

Buildings aren't living organisms that reproduce with variation and which compete for limited resources. If you remove all the properties that make the thing subject to a certain process, then yes, the process doesn't apply. Derp.


This is the equivalent of arguing against gravity by pointing out that hammers don't fall down aboard the international space station.

It's a nonsense objection that doesn't make any sense at all.

It's absurd for you pass it off as different just because you are ignorant. People argue that cosmology and biology are different and evolution and big bang are different fields but they cannot be simply due to common sense. At the core and pure simplicity of both theories, you believe that both the universe and living organisms became what they are now over time. may be dumbing it down but it's only a basic explanation just as my comparison to a house and evolution was basic if you took the time to analyze instead of purely trying to discredit. What you did, especially by calling it absurd is what's wrong with the arguments you all use to supposedly prove you and disprove us. You are quick to call us and our beliefs moronic, but people like you don't even take the time to know what we are saying, which placed you into that moronic state of mind you like to use. You are a hypocrite. Now saying that. Did a rock simply exist or were the molecules combined over time? It's the same argument that you use. Particles joined and formed to make the universe just as they did to form living organisms right? Take the time to understand what you simply label absurd and you wont be ignorant. I made a basic comparison. Molecules made the materials like they did a rock, like they did an idiot. your theory states that over time the joined and made blood just as they did iron ore. Now since I had to take the time to explain things to you, take the time to read, understand, and tell me why even so they are the same, My dumbing down of your beliefs is wrong. Living and nonliving is invalid .

 

[DogmaHunter]

Mans concept of common sense is based on research and fact, I will give you this but It is also common sense to accept the fact the we do not know everything.

Your "but" has nothing to do with the point being made.

I'll be the first to admit that we do not not know the reason, mindset, or science of God, but also commonsense dictates that even if man knows half of everything there is still half of what we don't know.That disproves your statement.

It does not. Not even remotely.
Nothing in my point about common sense requires any knowledge at all.

In fact, my entire point was that common sense is only usefull within the frameworks of things that we DO know. The entire point is that whenever we step out of the realm of things we DO know, common sense becomes close to useless to deduce answers. So useles that using only common sense to try and find answers, will almost certainly end up being the wrong answers.

And as any reasonable Christian will say that even though we know that God created man, we don't know how

You don't know that. You believe that.

It's not the same thing.

Just as theories that many people falsely hold and teach as fact i.e.big bang and evolution, may sound like common sense but isn't and can't be proven simply because common sense dictates that we don't know what caused it.

Scientific theories are well tested and established models of explanation of phenomena of reality. They ARE the knowledge that we have about the world.
Theories in science are never considered "proven". Theories can only ever be supported or disproven.

You're rambling and it isn't going anywhere. It's only exposing a vast ignorance on how science is actually done.

One key truth that both beliefs hold to though is the law that in order for something to be proven true, it has to be constant. God holds himself to the laws he made in order for them to work just as science holds themselves to the laws of consistency for a belief to be fact

This doesn't make any sense to me.
Sounds like preaching.

A problem I have though is the argument science used to discredit God once before, they are using for an excuse now and that just isn't common sense

Science doesn't address the topic of gods at all.
Sure, science might have tackled -and explained- phenomena of reality that used to be attributed to gods, and in that sense you can say that science discredit gods... But science doesn't address any gods. It doesn't care about gods. Gods are non-issues in science, just like all other unfalsifiable entities without measurable manifestation is ignored. Because such things don't matter at all. They are the equivalent of non-existance and in fact can't be distinguished from things that don't exist.

As the saying goes: "the non-existant and the undetectable, look very much alike".

Science can not ask who created God to argue for materialism and then, excuse thing as random by saying "well some things just are. What's good for one need to be good for the other.

Science doesn't argue for materialism either.

 

[Steven Wood]

It's painfully hilarious how hypocritical certain people are with their responses. They are very quick to call something the don't know absurd just because the don't have the intelligence to understand the question, let alone answer it but their beliefs or so well informed. They can't successfully reason their beliefs out so they just want to call names. 'we can reason our beliefs intelligence and disprove theirs but there is absolutely no way they will admit it let alone acknowledge their inability to answer thing without and elementary school,childish, "No you're a dummy" mentality.