Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Kenny'sID]

Funny, since none of the quotes in that post are actually about evolution, but just about your ill-understanding of how science is done.

Yet the actual points/facts there were 100% correct, while you offer no more than a quick deflection away from those points, with yet another of your sloppy, twisted truths, indicating the post was even supposed to be about evolution, (comes naturally) when I was clear what the post was for. When we teach lies, we have to defend them with the same, and your particular style of defense speaks more loudly against than it does for.

Scientists understand what scientific theories are. And how they are never proven.

Then those theories aren't facts, and the lack thereof is a real problem.

Not because you disagree with me.
Rather because you continue to demand "proof" for scientific theories.
Even after it's been explained to you countless times that science doesn't work like that.

When a person makes mistake after mistake and exposes misunderstanding after misunderstand, even after that person was corrected on countless occasions, it's pretty safe to say that this person has no proper knowledge concerning that particular subject.

The mistake/misunderstanding isn't with me, not even close, I'm not the one making claims I cannot prove. Twist/turn it how ever you choose, some of your comments may even sound valid to those that choose to believe evolution without proof. But I warn them, if they are listing too you, and at this point that may be questionable, beware how generally truthful those are we choose to believe.

Not an excuse.

Scientists understand what scientific theories are. And how they are never proven.

And anyone with any sense at all, requires proof, and doesn't let others convince them they should not require it...and automatic red flag for most. Or should we just trust them, even after we catch them in so many lies?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I think I lost a bunch of brain cells just from reading that. If I were living in the US I probably would have a good case sueing you for causing physical harm.

A "bunch" I somehow doubt that was even possible.

 

[Jimmy D]

Of course it's an obd=servation before it's proven, mine was proven toi be fact, yours implied evolution was a fact, and you can tell me all day long you never said that but there could be no other point on a thread tryinmg tpo piosve evolution

What is this nonsense, are you drunk?

I asked a simple question, I’ll try again for the third time....

What is the difference between your observation and the observed instances of evolution that I linked to?

I repeat, I’m not implying anything or trying to prove anything, the link shows only observations.

 

[pitabread]

Then those theories aren't facts, and the lack thereof is a real problem.

It's just a matter of understanding what a scientific theory *is*.

I had a professor who used to exclaim "All theories are false!" His point wasn't that theories were wrong. But rather that since theories are simplified extrapolations of reality, they could never be 100% reflective of that reality.

The first step to understanding what constitutes evidence or "proof" of a scientific theory is understanding what a scientific theory is: namely a simplified, provisional explanation for a specific set of phenomena within reality. And that such theories are subject to being continually refined and updated in an effort to continually improve our understanding and build a more accurate explanation. That explanation will never be 100% accurate (since the only 100% accurate reflection of reality is reality itself). But having a simplified explanation is eminently more useful than no explanation at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yet the actual points/facts there were 100% correct, while you offer no more than a quick deflection away from those points, with yet another of your sloppy, twisted truths, indicating the post was even supposed to be about evolution, (comes naturally) when I was clear what the post was for. When we teach lies, we have to defend them with the same, and your particular style of defense speaks more loudly against than it does for.

I tried to explain to you as simple as I could how succesfull experiments do NOT "prove" scientific theories. How they only support theories and how they can disprove theories.

That you still don't get it after all these attempts, by both me and many others... not really sure what else there is left to do, but to repeat ourselves for the upteenth time or simply move on.

Then those theories aren't facts, and the lack thereof is a real problem.

Scientific theories aren't facts. They explain facts.
Facts are observations. Observations require an explanation. Theories provide those explanations. Those explanations can be tested against empirical reality.

Successfull tests support the explanations.
Unsuccesfull tests either show the explanations to be incomplete, or they disprove them. Well, that or there was a problem with the test itself.

The mistake/misunderstanding isn't with me, not even close, I'm not the one making claims I cannot prove.

No, you're the one trying to discuss science, without the science part.

Twist/turn it how ever you choose, some of your comments may even sound valid to those that choose to believe evolution without proof. But I warn them, if they are listing too you, and at this point that may be questionable, beware how generally truthful those are we choose to believe.

I accept evolution on mountains of evidence.

And anyone with any sense at all, requires proof, and doesn't let others convince them they should not require it...and automatic red flag for most. Or should we just trust them, even after we catch them in so many lies?

Or, alternatively, you could just learn how science works and go from there.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Definition of theory
plural theories
1 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

• the wave theory of light

2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action

• her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn

b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory

• in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all

3 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

Hmm, I let that slip right by me without comment, while I was the one who posted it. I love that particular definition for theory:

b : an unproved assumption : conjecture

Precisely what evolution is based on. The term unproven seems to indicate things are expected to be proven, or even ARE proven by science, something someone here told me wasn't possible when it comes to theory. Imagine that, the only thing evolution has going for it is theory, or to be more precise assumption/conjecture, and it just so happens there is a rule that says all those theories are not provable, yes, ALL.

However, we are to take all *unproven* theory about evolution as fact, while they look you in the eye and tell you point blank, it's not provable?

And those that choose to believe evolution don't even bat an eye at that?

 

[pitabread]

Hmm, I let that slip right by me without comment, while I was the one who posted it. I love that particular definition for theory:

b : an unproved assumption : conjecture

Precisely what evolution is based on.

Dictionary definitions of "theory" are not necessarily the same thing as the scientific use of the word "theory".

If you're trying to poke holes in science by invoking the dictionary, then all you're really doing is constructing a giant strawman.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hmm, I let that slip right by me without comment, while I was the one who posted it. I love that particular definition for theory:

b : an unproved assumption : conjecture

Precisely what evolution is based on. The term unproven seems to indicate things are expected to be proven, or even ARE proven by science, something someone here told me wasn't possible when it comes to theory. Imagine that, the only thing evolution has going for it is theory, or to be more precise assumption/conjecture, and it just so happens there is a rule that says all those theories are not provable, yes, ALL.

However, we are to take all *unproven* theory about evolution as fact, while they look you in the eye and tell you point blank, it's not provable?

And those that choose to believe evolution don't even bat an eye at that?

So you also don't understand how dictionaries work?

You seem to think you can arbitrarily choose definition 1, 2 or 3, no matter what context you are using it in.

It's definition number 1, off course. The science definition.

But you can pretend that "scientific theory" falls under definition number 3 if that makes you feel better. And don't mind making a fool of yourself.

 

[Speedwell]

Hmm, I let that slip right by me without comment, while I was the one who posted it. I love that particular definition for theory:

b : an unproved assumption : conjecture

Precisely what evolution is based on. The term unproven seems to indicate things are expected to be proven, or even ARE proven by science, something someone here told me wasn't possible when it comes to theory. Imagine that, the only thing evolution has going for it is theory, or to be more precise assumption/conjecture, and it just so happens there is a rule that says all those theories are not provable, yes, ALL.

However, we are to take all *unproven* theory about evolution as fact, while they look you in the eye and tell you point blank, it's not provable?

And those that choose to believe evolution don't even bat an eye at that?

A lovely definition. Too bad it's not the one used in science, which is:

"...a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

Scientific theory - Wikipedia

 

[Kenny'sID]

It's just a matter of understanding what a scientific theory *is*.

I know exactly what it is.

I had a professor who used to exclaim "All theories are false!" His point wasn't that theories were wrong. But rather that since theories are simplified extrapolations of reality, they could never be 100% reflective of that reality.

Actually, his is just a theory as well. And my theory there, they may or may not be false. But, as his point may have been, as long as they are unproven assumption/conjecture, they might as well be false. However evolution takes that in the wrong direction "it might as well be true".

The first step to understanding what constitutes evidence or "proof" of a scientific theory is understanding what a scientific theory is: namely a simplified, provisional explanation for a specific set of phenomena within reality. And that such theories are subject to being continually refined and updated in an effort to continually improve our understanding and build a more accurate explanation. That explanation will never be 100% accurate (since the only 100% accurate reflection of reality is reality itself). But having a simplified explanation is eminently more useful than no explanation at all.

I just happen to look that up yesterday, what some here have repeated almost verbatim from a website on some guys goings on about why there is no such thing as proof.

His reasoning, things are always changing, so nothing is absolute proof, but there is a big problem with that. And yes, that can be used as and excuse, but, and I mean this in all sincerity, it really is just an excuse to say no proof can be offered when it most assuredly can be offered.

Call it proof "for the present" don't assume it will be changed. I just want proof for the now.. If things do change in the future, then change the proof. IOW, "Here is our proof today, at least until something refutes it" and it may very well remain proof forever, just as so many things in science have.

Call it proof for the present if they must, while to most people, it's the same ol' proof we've always expected, just with added unnecessary complications. But they don't do what's reasonable, they instead say proof is not possible. They wrongly assume it will change, and make provisions for it, while though that could happen, it won't necessarily. Makes no sense at all to see it that way, so the only conclusion I can draw from their screwy conclusions, it's an excuse.

Here is the site where many her are getting their reasoning.

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

 

[Kenny'sID]

I tried to explain to you as simple as I could how succesfull experiments do NOT "prove" scientific theories. How they only support theories and how they can disprove theories.

And I tried to explain to you and others for that matter why your explanations cannot be taken seriously. Clearly you refuse to underhand that when someone discredits themselves by not being truthful, people tend not to believe them. This is common knowledge to most, to others? evidently not so much.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You seem to think you can arbitrarily choose definition 1, 2 or 3, no matter what context you are using it in.

And you seem to think that's going to cut it as an excuse to say that definition is not in context, when it clearly is very much in context, the very reason I chose it?

Stop it.

"My way is the truth and I should be believed over others, even though I have a habit of not being truthful"

See my dilemma, the one I've recently made great effort to try to point out?

 

[Kenny'sID]

A lovely definition. Too bad it's not the one used in science, which is:

You are saying the dictionary is not using it for science?

And remember science also chooses other nonsense "excuses" like the one I recently spoke of/linked to here

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

Surely you can see why some of us cannot take them seriously.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And I tried to explain to you and others for that matter why your explanations cannot be taken seriously

Which makes no sense at all.

No experiment can prove a theory.
Experiments can only support / confirm theories.
Or disprove them. Or show them incomplete.

No experiment can ever show a theory to being 100% correct (because that is what "prove" means).

Clearly you refuse to underhand that when someone discredits themselves by not being truthful, people tend not to believe them. This is common knowledge to most, to others? evidently not so much.

Yes, it's actually exactly why a lot of us don't take you seriously and consider you just a troll most of the time.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No experiment can prove a theory.
Experiments can only support / confirm theories.
Or disprove them. Or show them incomplete.

No experiment can ever show a theory to being 100% correct (because that is what "prove" means).

Then, as I've said several times... you got a problem, that is, if you want anyone in their right mind to believe you.

Yes, it's actually exactly why a lot of us don't take you seriously and consider you just a troll most of the time.

Imagine that, people who are on the losing end of this disagreement calling their opposition a Troll.

"He don't know nuthin'" Seriously, that's the only way some know how to deal with being wrong, and precisely what you are doing..

Did you have some proof you might want to present, or are you just going to continue to blame the lack of such on others?

 

[Snappy1]

You are saying the dictionary is not using it for science?

And remember science also chooses other nonsense "excuses" like the one I recently spoke of/linked to here

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

Surely you can see why some of us cannot take them seriously.

Is there something in particular in that link you'd like to discuss?

 

[Speedwell]

Then, as I've said several times... you got a problem, that is, if you want anyone in their right mind to believe you.

Don't you think that a tentative explanation supported by evidence is better than no explanation at all?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Is there something in particular in that link you'd like to discuss?

Pardon me? I already discussed the particulars...you?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Don't you think that a tentative explanation supported by evidence is better than no explanation at all?

I think that you think it's better to assume your assumed evidence is an actual explanation. Remember, if evolution cannot be proven all you CAN do is assume what you think is evidence is truly evidence at all.

As far as your particular tentative explanation, no, not better than nothing but only equal too, at least until its proven.

 

[Snappy1]

Pardon me? I already discussed the particulars...you?

Well that's not true.