Why evolution isn't scientific

[Steven Wood]

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




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.




You don't know that. You believe that.

It's not the same thing.



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.



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




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 doesn't argue for materialism either.

Everything that you just used to try to validate your point proves mine. First, I agree you. Nothing in your point requires any knowledge. You will be unable to find any in your point. It doesn't surprise me that it sounds like preaching and you don't understand, because you are ignorant to anything you don't believe so it become something that doesn't matter. You are correct that Gods don't matter in science, that's exactly why again.... moronic. It's pitiful that you say that science doesn't argue materialism but yet you just said that science ignores the unmeasurable. That's pretty much materialism. Saying that manifested material is what science studies because the unexplainable, supernatural is ignored and therefore nonexistent and then saying that science doesn't study the material, manifested completely cancel out your argument.saying that you can't prove something therefore it doesn't exist is an uneducated belief to hold, therefore what you believe not only sounds worthless, it IS. I ramble because all of your points are negating themselves. Perfect example, You cannot say that you don't know what caused random perfect then say that something is not true or worth your time because you can't explain it. I'm actually tired and annoyed in proving how hypocritical you are. Not entirely what people like you believe, just you. You but no knowledge or common send into any of your so called points and this will never go anywhere because you are the type to ignore what you aren't smart enough to explain. Another mistaken belief about Christians is that they are push overs. This conversation is not fruitful and I am learning nothing true or defensible from you so it's over. Try to explain your stupidity to someone that will fall for it.

 

[Steven Wood]

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.

Like some scientists, Many "christians" will lie and alter things for the sake of fame, power, and money too. That is a huge reason most can't agree on anything let alone defend their beliefs and they sound stupid to the world​

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's absurd for you pass it off as different just because you are ignorant.

No, they are objectively different.
The whole reason the evolutionary process is at work in living things is precisely because they reproduce with modification, are subject to a fitness test (= survive and reproduce) and repeat it over and over again with ever new generation.

None of these things are present in non-living things. So the analogy does not work. It is absurd.

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.

LOL!!!!!!!

yeah, sure, "common sense" dictate that cosmology and biology do NOT deal with different things. Uhu.

Come on man. Be serious.

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.

Isn't that the case with literally everything? Aren't all things that currently exist a product of the past??

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.

I don't have to discredit it because it is a fallacious comparision.
Houses and living organisms are nothing alike in the sense that you wish to compare them.

Obviously houses aren't the result of biological evolution. They aren't biological for one, and they don't reproduce with variation. Why would they evolve?

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.

I called it absurd, because it is absurd.
Again, it's the equivalent of arguing against gravity by pointing at floating hammers in space. It makes no sense.

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.

I'll not here that I didn't call you anything. It is in fact YOU who just called me "moronic".

Hypocrite much?
You are falsely accusing me of things and in the next breath you engage in it yourself.
This doesn't make you look good.

You are a hypocrite

Says the hypocrite.

Now saying that. Did a rock simply exist or were the molecules combined over time?

Rocks form over time. And not by biological evolution.

It's the same argument that you use.

It's not. I'm talking about biological evolution. Which only applies to biological living entities that reproduce with modification and which compete for limited resources.

To point to non-living, non-biological things that do not reproduce and which aren't in competition with peers for limited resources, to try and argue against biological evolution by saying that those non-living, non-biological things aren't subject to biological evolution, is invalid. So invalid, that I'm happy to call it absurd.

Particles joined and formed to make the universe just as they did to form living organisms right?

I have no clue how the universe was formed. But I guarantee you that it wasn't "just like" life formed. I'm quite certain that these would be very different processes involving very different forces and ingredients. So different that I'm quite confident in saying that the scientists working on one, will have very very different expertises then the ones working on the other. They'll be working in entirely different fields.

I can't believe that you need to have this explained to you.
I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and not insult your intelligence by assuming that you aren't actually serious and instead just trolling.

Take the time to understand what you simply label absurd and you wont be ignorant. I made a basic comparison

You made an absurd comparision.

You're not even comparing apples with oranges. You are comparing plastic apples with organic oranges.

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.

No, "my theory" does not state at all that blood and iron are formed by the same process.

Good grief.

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 .

You just strawmanned my beliefs. To the point where they have become unrecognisable.
I feel more stupid, just by addressing these points.

 

[xianghua]

There's no specific "limit" since it entirely depends on what organisms and what time lines you are talking about.

so what is the limit if we are talking about tetrapod evolution for instance?

 

[xianghua]

I'd have to say that living things look nothing like houses that have been built according to a plan.

its true. they are even more complex than houses. and this is why they point to design even more than just a building.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

I'll just point out that in this conversation, there is only one person who's calling the other names - and that is you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Everything that you just used to try to validate your point proves mine. First, I agree you. Nothing in your point requires any knowledge. You will be unable to find any in your point. It doesn't surprise me that it sounds like preaching and you don't understand, because you are ignorant to anything you don't believe so it become something that doesn't matter. You are correct that Gods don't matter in science, that's exactly why again.... moronic. It's pitiful that you say that science doesn't argue materialism but yet you just said that science ignores the unmeasurable. That's pretty much materialism. Saying that manifested material is what science studies because the unexplainable, supernatural is ignored and therefore nonexistent and then saying that science doesn't study the material, manifested completely cancel out your argument.saying that you can't prove something therefore it doesn't exist is an uneducated belief to hold, therefore what you believe not only sounds worthless, it IS. I ramble because all of your points are negating themselves. Perfect example, You cannot say that you don't know what caused random perfect then say that something is not true or worth your time because you can't explain it. I'm actually tired and annoyed in proving how hypocritical you are. Not entirely what people like you believe, just you. You but no knowledge or common send into any of your so called points and this will never go anywhere because you are the type to ignore what you aren't smart enough to explain. Another mistaken belief about Christians is that they are push overs. This conversation is not fruitful and I am learning nothing true or defensible from you so it's over. Try to explain your stupidity to someone that will fall for it.

Here's a small suggestion.............


Try a bit of formatting in your posts, because such blobs of text are rather unpleasant to read. You know, try using some paragraphes etc.


As for your comments about materialism...
Science can only study those things that are observable, detectable, measureable.

Science is materialistic only because of necessity. Not ideologically, like you are insinuating.

Give scientists the means to detect / measure immaterial things, like "spirits" or other supernatural inventions, and scientists will not only be happy, but intellectually obligated to include it in their studies.

You can't study that which is undetectable. And there isn't a single reason to include factors in explanatory models that are entirely void of any detectable manifestation whatsoever. And even less reason to suggest such factors in the first place.

 

[DogmaHunter]

its true. they are even more complex than houses. and this is why they point to design even more than just a building.

As so many people, including myself, have already explained to you ad nauseum: complexity is not an indicator of artificial design. At all.

 

[xianghua]

• evolution theory predicts a hierarchical fossil record where certain life forms are ancestral to later ones. For instance, evolution states that amphibians evolved from bony fish. The prediction then says that bony fish precede amphibians first in the fossil record. When we would find amphibian fossil preceding the appearance of bony fish, that part of evolution theory has been falsified.

ok . so lets take this point since this was my main example. as you admit; even an out of place fossil will not falsify evolution. just a part of it. scientists will just change the time of this specific creature in evolution and evolution will still be just fine. see the problem?

 

[xianghua]

As I said it had been a long while having read about it and I was asking a legitimate question. The beetle is easily explained as adaptation to food availability but there is something special about the beetle that the cactus relies on and without it would not last past 1 generation. This leaves me to believe there has been no other way for the cactus to reproduce without the beetle which means the rate of evolution had to be the same for both to depend so heavily on one another. I really would like an explanation that isn't condescending.

its basically the chicken and the egg problem. there are many such cases in nature. actually almost any gene has that problem.

 

[xianghua]

You've had this explained to you dozens of times in the past (see here for example). Why not just revisit those prior discussions instead of making the same incorrect claims over and over again?

as i said to sarah in that thread- by this criteria even human with a dino fossil isnt an "out of place fossil". we can just push back humans.

 

[DogmaHunter]

ok . so lets take this point since this was my main example. as you admit; even an out of place fossil will not falsify evolution. just a part of it. scientists will just change the time of this specific creature in evolution and evolution will still be just fine. see the problem?

I see the problem. It's not what you think it is.
The problem is your insistence on working with false information and strawmen arguments.

 

[DogmaHunter]

its basically the chicken and the egg problem

The egg was first, since eggs evolved before chickens did.

. there are many such cases in nature. actually almost any gene has that problem.

It's called symbiotic evolution.
Yes, there are plenty examples of such in nature.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/symbiosis2.htm

This doesn't pose a problem to evolution at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

as i said to sarah in that thread- by this criteria even human with a dino fossil isnt an "out of place fossil". we can just push back humans.

No, we can not.

 

[Jimmy D]

ok . so lets take this point since this was my main example. as you admit; even an out of place fossil will not falsify evolution. just a part of it. scientists will just change the time of this specific creature in evolution and evolution will still be just fine. see the problem?

I wonder how many times you've asked, and received an answer to this question?

 

[pitabread]

as i said to sarah in that thread- by this criteria even human with a dino fossil isnt an "out of place fossil". we can just push back humans.

This has also been explained to you why this isn't comparable. Why do you keep ignoring prior discussions? Why are you having trouble understanding this?

 

[xianghua]

No, we can not.

can you explain why?

 

[xianghua]

This has also been explained to you why this isn't comparable. Why do you keep ignoring prior discussions? Why are you having trouble understanding this?

so you agree that a human fossil with a dino one will be a problem for evolution or not?

 

[pitabread]

so you agree that a human fossil with a dino one will be a problem for evolution or not?

Do you not recall the previous discussions you have had about this? Why do you keep asking the exact same things over and over?

 

[xianghua]

Do you not recall the previous discussions you have had about this? Why do you keep asking the exact same things over and over?

if we already discussed this point- what was the answer then?