Why evolution isn't scientific

[Kylie]

Me too...get in line!

You'd think that if what you have actually works, you'd be able to provide some actual proof of it by now. But we always just get you insisting that it works, never any actual evidence.

 

[pitabread]

Then tell us, if the dictionary meaning doesn't apply.
et·y·mo·log·i·cal
/ˌedəməˈläjəkəl/
adjective

1. relating to the origin and historical development of words and their meanings.

My bad, I was referring to epistemological basis.

I'll blame mental auto correct on that one...

 

[dad]

You'd think that if what you have actually works, you'd be able to provide some actual proof of it by now. But we always just get you insisting that it works, never any actual evidence.

We are not really looking for 'it' here, so much as looking at the evidences or support you could provide for your religion. You seem to feel that by calling it reality or science that somehow negates the need to post proper attempts at making a case.

 

[dad]

My bad, I was referring to epistemological basis.

I'll blame mental auto correct on that one...

Ok we can give that one a whirl.

Epistemology (/ɪˌpɪstɪˈmɒlədʒi/ ( listen); from Greek, Modern ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē, meaning 'knowledge', and λόγος, logos, meaning 'logical discourse') is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge. Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief.

Science cannot come to a knowledge of truth according to the Almighty. So it has none of that stuff. We still wait for posters to justify their scientific religion here. In all ways, your side cannot benefit from your word.

 

[pitabread]

Science cannot come to a knowledge of truth according to the Almighty. So it has none of that stuff. We still wait for posters to justify their scientific religion here. In all ways, your side cannot benefit from your word.

This has nothing to do with what I was referring to previously.

 

[Kylie]

We are not really looking for 'it' here, so much as looking at the evidences or support you could provide for your religion. You seem to feel that by calling it reality or science that somehow negates the need to post proper attempts at making a case.

Sorry, are we looking at the evidence to support particular viewpoints?

That's funny, since you haven't provided a single shred of evidence to support anything you;ve said.

Would you care to start by providing some evidence that your viewpoints are correct?

 

[dad]

This has nothing to do with what I was referring to previously.

That's what you think.

 

[dad]

Sorry, are we looking at the evidence to support particular viewpoints?

That's funny, since you haven't provided a single shred of evidence to support anything you;ve said.

Would you care to start by providing some evidence that your viewpoints are correct?

My viewpoint is that science has no evidence for the same nature in the past it uses in all models for the far past. You confirm this.

You once tried to defend radioactive dating, if I recall. Sorry about your loss.

 

[Kylie]

My viewpoint is that science has no evidence for the same nature in the past it uses in all models for the far past. You confirm this.

You once tried to defend radioactive dating, if I recall. Sorry about your loss.

If I recall correctly, your argument against radiometric dating was to repeatedly claim it was wrong without providing any supporting evidence at all.

And you were completely unable to explain why the ratios match what we'd expect if the laws had always been what they are currently, since if the laws were different the ratios would be different.

You did nothing except make a loud noise.

You're totally incapable of defending your position.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

in science we can ask theoretical question too you know.

About real things, otherwise the question is unanswerable.

For example: how many gooblyglubdrubs can you fit in a BMW X5?

I could answer with 1 or with 1 million and it would be meaningless. It's unanswerable unless we know what a gooblyglubdrub is, what its dimension / volume is, its density, its flexibility, etc.

So when you ask me about imaginary cars, I can't answer, because I don't know what that is.

 

[dad]

If I recall correctly, your argument against radiometric dating was to repeatedly claim it was wrong without providing any supporting evidence at all.

My argument was that since a same nature is assumed to have the decay also in the past, you would need to first prove a same nature did exist then. If all you wanted to do is date things from a hundred years ago, that is fine, I agree generally. We know what nature existed then. This is not true about the time of Babel.

And you were completely unable to explain why the ratios match what we'd expect if the laws had always been what they are currently, since if the laws were different the ratios would be different.

I explained that nature leaves ratios! The former nature left them and this nature leaves them! Your mistake was to try to interpret all ratios purely from a present nature perspective! That is religion.

 

[Kylie]

My argument was that since a same nature is assumed to have the decay also in the past, you would need to first prove a same nature did exist then. If all you wanted to do is date things from a hundred years ago, that is fine, I agree generally. We know what nature existed then. This is not true about the time of Babel.

And the evidence for that is the fact that there is nothing in our world that does not match with the idea that the same state existed back then. Our world is entirely consistent with a same state past. If there had been a different state past, then we would not see a world consistent with a same state past.

I explained that nature leaves ratios! The former nature left them and this nature leaves them! Your mistake was to try to interpret all ratios purely from a present nature perspective! That is religion.

You didn't explain anything, you just made the claim and provided no evidence to back it up. You were also totally unable to explain why the ratios of daughter materials we have is entirely consistent with a same state past if there had been different laws in the past.

 

[dad]

And the evidence for that is the fact that there is nothing in our world that does not match with the idea that the same state existed back then.

We need ask only one question to test the validity of your statement.
'Does science assume that laws and forces were the same when making models of the past'? If yes, then you are engaged in circular religion.

You can't splash all evidences with your beliefs and then say, 'gee, they seem to smell of our beliefs or look like them!

Our world is entirely consistent with a same state past.

Not my world. Not Scripture. Not ancient history. Maybe the world of the narrow minded circular belief origin so called sciences.

If there had been a different state past, then we would not see a world consistent with a same state past.

I don't see that world you speak of because I remain open and honest. I see that science doesn't know either way! The issue was never..'gee, if we apply beliefs to the world what will it look like to us' THAT is not knowledge or any real science.

You didn't explain anything, you just made the claim and provided no evidence to back it up. You were also totally unable to explain why the ratios of daughter materials we have is entirely consistent with a same state past if there had been different laws in the past.

I actually explained that if the ratios were mostly here before the current nature started, then we could not look at the ratios based on present radioactive decay for dates!

 

[Kylie]

We need ask only one question to test the validity of your statement.
'Does science assume that laws and forces were the same when making models of the past'? If yes, then you are engaged in circular religion.

You can't splash all evidences with your beliefs and then say, 'gee, they seem to smell of our beliefs or look like them!

Wow, you are so far past wrong.

We need to ask TWO questions.

1. Is there anything in the world that can't be explained by the laws we KNOW exist in the here and now?
2. If there isn't, why should we assume that the laws were different?

You have NEVER given an example of anything that can't be explained by the laws we KNOW exist in the here and now, and you have never given any good reason why we should assume that the laws were ever different.

Until you can, your position is worthless.

Not my world. Not Scripture. Not ancient history. Maybe the world of the narrow minded circular belief origin so called sciences.

Your beliefs do not determine reality. Let go of everything except for what you can see and measure in the real world. If you start off by bringing in your conclusions, you are never going to find the truth.

I don't see that world you speak of because I remain open and honest.

No you don't. You have constantly committed logical fallacies, you have ignored evidence you have demonstrated that you don't understand how science works, and you have constantly demonstrated that you have no desire to learn.

All you have ever done is make the same flawed claims over and over, refused to back up your claims with evidence and resorted to using flawed logical fallacies to try to twist your ideas as some kind of fact. You have failed totally to provide any reason for anyone to believe you.

I see that science doesn't know either way!

You are incapable of understanding what science knows because the way science works is beyond your grasp.

The issue was never..'gee, if we apply beliefs to the world what will it look like to us' THAT is not knowledge or any real science.

You are the one applying your beliefs to the world.

I actually explained that if the ratios were mostly here before the current nature started, then we could not look at the ratios based on present radioactive decay for dates!

And you failed completely to explain why the ratios that just happened to be there in the past state are EXACTLY what would have been produced by the present state laws. You have no explanation for this, and you are completely incapable of providing one, because your idea is wrong.

 

[dad]

Wow, you are so far past wrong.

We need to ask TWO questions.

1. Is there anything in the world that can't be explained by the laws we KNOW exist in the here and now?

That is like asking if anything can't be explained by the tooth fairy. Of course we can do that also. The thing is that you need more. You need proof the nature was the same before you can use the belief that it was to explain it all! Just like you would need to prove a tooth fairy if you used her as the basis for all explanations!

1. 
   

Your beliefs do not determine reality. Let go of everything except for what you can see and measure in the real world. If you start off by bringing in your conclusions, you are never going to find the truth.

How about YOU let go of your belief in a same nature in the past until you can prove it!? I need not let go of God and His creation. He proved His word was true a million ways..tested, tried and repeated.

You are incapable of understanding what science knows because the way science works is beyond your grasp.

Our problem is what I do understand about what science bases claims on. If you think it does not, you have a shock coming.

You are the one applying your beliefs to the world.

You are the one doing the same and calling it science.

And you failed completely to explain why the ratios that just happened to be there in the past state are EXACTLY what would have been produced by the present state laws.

The explanation is that nature changed and when it did we already had the ratios (except for the recent stuff produced in last several thousand years)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We need ask only one question to test the validity of your statement.
'Does science assume that laws and forces were the same when making models of the past'? If yes, then you are engaged in circular religion.

There are no "models of the past".
There are only models of observable nature, which are assumed to work today like they worked yesterday and how they'll work tomorrow.

This assumption is well tested and supported.
If you assume that for example gravity in the past worked the same as today, then you can make accurate predictions about the observable universe.
Same with distance. If you assume gravity works the same 100 lightyears from here as it does here, then you can make accurate predictions about the movement of stars and galaxies that we observe through the hubble telescope.

Not my world.

But you live in a fantasy world.

 

[Kylie]

That is like asking if anything can't be explained by the tooth fairy. Of course we can do that also. The thing is that you need more. You need proof the nature was the same before you can use the belief that it was to explain it all! Just like you would need to prove a tooth fairy if you used her as the basis for all explanations!

You really don't know how to science.

And I notice that you are perfectly happy to disregard this standard of evidence to support your own ideas.

How about YOU let go of your belief in a same nature in the past until you can prove it!? I need not let go of God and His creation. He proved His word was true a million ways..tested, tried and repeated.

Science has proven countless times that it is the best tool we have for learning how the real world works.

Your book of myth isn't a reliable source of information about reality.

Our problem is what I do understand about what science bases claims on. If you think it does not, you have a shock coming.

What you understand about what science bases its claims on is very little.

You are the one doing the same and calling it science.

No, it is not the same thing. And I'll tell you why. I base my position on what has been observed actually happening. I base my position on testable and repeatable evidence. And I am willing to change my mind if presented with good evidence.

The explanation is that nature changed and when it did we already had the ratios (except for the recent stuff produced in last several thousand years)

This does not answer the question.

Why were the ratios in the exact amounts required to make it look like the present state laws had always existed? Why? WHY? WHY?

 

[dad]

There are no "models of the past".

Of course there are.

There are only models of observable nature, which are assumed to work today like they worked yesterday and how they'll work tomorrow.

Ha. So you model the past on the nature we now observe. That is called modelling and...religion!

This assumption is well tested and supported.

False. No one ever lived or tested anything out of this present nature.

Obviously.

If you assume that for example gravity in the past worked the same as today, then you can make accurate predictions about the observable universe.

Name one.

Same with distance. If you assume gravity works the same 100 lightyears from here as it does here, then you can make accurate predictions about the movement of stars and galaxies that we observe through the hubble telescope.

The distances are not known. The years light takes to travel thingie involves time. No one knows what time is like out there...only here. So, you are left with gravity working at unknown distances on things of unknown mass and size What exactly is it about that gravity there that you think you can tell us? Ha.

 

[dad]

You really don't know how to science.

Nice sentence.

And I notice that you are perfectly happy to disregard this standard of evidence to support your own ideas.



Science has proven countless times that it is the best tool we have for learning how the real world works.

Your book of myth isn't a reliable source of information about reality.

Pattern detected: Allude to pretend evidence that is never posted, and try to cozy up to the word real. Ha.

What you understand about what science bases its claims on is very little.

Yet the present is considered the key to the past in origin 'sciences'. Denial is useless.

No, it is not the same thing. And I'll tell you why. I base my position on what has been observed actually happening. I base my position on testable and repeatable evidence. And I am willing to change my mind if presented with good evidence.

You chose to believe that belief soaked evidences that have never been observed and never can be. That sort of deliberate faith shows your mind was made up long ago.

Why were the ratios in the exact amounts required to make it look like the present state laws had always existed? Why? WHY? WHY?

Well, with enough belief and changing stories greatly and often, one could look at ratios as if present nature caused it all. The more honest and simpler way to look at ratios is to admit we don't know. After al science was spawned in this nature and is bound by it's rules! It has no clue there was anytime else, and no proof there was not! Honestly, regarding origin issues we would be better off to ask a frog!

 

[Kylie]

Pattern detected: Allude to pretend evidence that is never posted, and try to cozy up to the word real. Ha.

Once again, you are projecting. You are the one who does this, not me.

Yet the present is considered the key to the past in origin 'sciences'. Denial is useless.

Non sequitur. You do not understand how science works.

You chose to believe that belief soaked evidences that have never been observed and never can be. That sort of deliberate faith shows your mind was made up long ago.

Projecting again.

Well, with enough belief and changing stories greatly and often, one could look at ratios as if present nature caused it all. The more honest and simpler way to look at ratios is to admit we don't know. After al science was spawned in this nature and is bound by it's rules! It has no clue there was anytime else, and no proof there was not! Honestly, regarding origin issues we would be better off to ask a frog!

That's the worst attempt at a meaningless answer I've ever seen. Your idea can't explain anything.