Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Kenny'sID]

your experiment was incomplete. You made a blanket statement that the ( admittedly silly) experiment you proposed covered only part of . This is why modern scientists don’t make blanket statements about the stuff they’re testing in professional periodicals . Explaining things to laymen who might draw the wrong conclusion from the careful hedging is a little tricky sometimes. So here goes- based on every bit of data that we have about evolution we can consider it a fact of nature. There is NO evidence that refutes any of the theories of evolution . Creationists claim that they have some but over 20 years all I’ve EVER seen are silly mistakes , deliberate obfuscation, and Orwellian newspeak

What would make it complete?

All that talk and nothing in detail.

 

[Kenny'sID]

And BTW, can someone/anyone explain exactly why science proves nothing (FWIW, It was recently claimed no one said that but the source was very unreliable). I imagine I'll get the usual cop outs, like I shouldn't expect an explanation, maybe? lol Or maybe it's too complicated for anyone but the educated to understand, that's a popular catch all.

Oh, and if there is more than one reason please keep them separate, and with details on all reasons.

 

[Kenny'sID]

And BTW, can someone/anyone explain exactly why science proves nothing (FWIW, It was recently claimed no one said that but the source was very unreliable). I imagine I'll get the usual cop outs, like I shouldn't expect an explanation, maybe? lol Or maybe it's too complicated for anyone but the educated to understand, that's a popular catch all.

Oh, and if there is more than one reason please keep them separate, and with details on all reasons.

 

[tas8831]

I am a gardener. I am curious but I do not believe everything I read and I have experienced miracles. So I also believe God can do miracles.

What miracles? How do you know they were not just coincidences?

 

[VirOptimus]

And BTW, can someone/anyone explain exactly why science proves nothing (FWIW, It was recently claimed no one said that but the source was very unreliable). I imagine I'll get the usual cop outs, like I shouldn't expect an explanation, maybe? lol Or maybe it's too complicated for anyone but the educated to understand, that's a popular catch all.

Oh, and if there is more than one reason please keep them separate, and with details on all reasons.

Science (and therefore physical reality) doesnt work like that.

We are, hovewer not responsible for your education. You choice to be ignorant is your own.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

here is a simple way to detect design in most cases: the chance of that object to be the result of a natural process. we know for instance that the chance for a car to be the result of a natural process is radically low. therefore we can detect design when we see a car since a natural procoess cant explain how such a car can evolve naturally.

Nah; this argument requires perfect (or almost perfect) knowledge of nature. Paraphrased it is, "it's designed if you can't explain it naturally". Science spends its time looking for explanations of phenomena that are currently unexplained, and none of the explanations have involved design, other than by ourselves.

We're still doing science because we don't have perfect knowledge of nature.

 

[xianghua]

A car is only evidence of design if it is a man-made car.

so if a car were made by an alien it will not be evidence for design?

 

[xianghua]

You have not shown anything. You have made a lot of baseless claims however.

Write an article for peer-review if you want to challange rhe established science.

scientists already did it. its not my problem that you dont want to accept it.

 

[xianghua]

And bats use wings for flight.
And penguins don't.

Your extremely superficial dataset is ridiculously incomplete.

but its still mean that we have a nested hierarchy in vehicle.

 

[Speedwell]

so if a car were made by an alien it will not be evidence for design?

It would be evidence if we knew it was made by an alien rather than occurring naturally, or if we could discover evidence of manufacturing techniques and materials similar to those use by humans. Otherwise we couldn't tell if it was designed or not.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That didn't show up in the dictionaries I checked, nothing even close.

Did you look under Formal Proof ?

Then the observation that the paper burns, or put more simply, seeing the paper burn, is not proof the paper burns? And if not, why?

It's trivially true to say that the observations are proof of a phenomenon to be explained, in as much as even if the observations themselves are flawed, we still need an explanation.

But explanations (theories) are not themselves formally provable - although they may be falsifiable, e.g. if they make a prediction that is false (although even this isn't conclusive, due to the possibility of error).

 

[xianghua]

And bats use wings for flight.
And penguins don't.

Your extremely superficial dataset is ridiculously incomplete.

but its still mean that we have a nested hierarchy in vehicle.

 

[xianghua]

Present the math then.

i need to show a math to prove that a car cant evolve naturally? realy?

 

[Speedwell]

i need to show a math to prove that a car cant evolve naturally? realy?

Yes. Your specific claim was,

"here is a simple way to detect design in most cases: the chance of that object to be the result of a natural process."
So what is the "chance?" Show your math. But make it easy on yourself: choose a naturally occuring life form for your example.

 

[xianghua]

A rather moot point given that humans have never had contact with extraterrestrial beings.

Any concept of a "flying saucer" in any science fiction is based entirely on human imagination and experience.

so you will conclude design or not if you will see such an object?

 

[xianghua]

A rather moot point given that humans have never had contact with extraterrestrial beings.

Any concept of a "flying saucer" in any science fiction is based entirely on human imagination and experience.

so you will conclude design or not if you will see such an object?

 

[Speedwell]

so you will conclude design or not if you will see such an object?

Just seeing one flying by would not provide enough information. One would have to examine it closely, perhaps even perform chemical analyses and other such tests.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Science (and therefore physical reality) doesnt work like that.

I see, no answer...thanks just the same

We are, hovewer not responsible for your education. You choice to be ignorant is your own.

Darn, I forget to list the, "we aren't responsible for your education" in the expected cop out list. Thank you.

Funny though, you had no problem in educating me in that it "doesn't work like that" but when it comes to why suddenly you aren't responsible. lol. How convenient.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Science (and therefore physical reality) doesnt work like that.

I see, no answer...thanks just the same

We are, hovewer not responsible for your education. You choice to be ignorant is your own.

Darn, I forget to list the, "we aren't responsible for your education" in the expected cop out list. Thank you.

Funny though, you had no problem in educating me in that it "doesn't work like that" but when it comes to why suddenly you aren't responsible. lol. How convenient.

 

[xianghua]

It's exactly zero, since it has parts made up of manufactured materials that don't occur naturally, like plastic.

so if the car were made only from metal parts(naturally occuring materials) you will not conclude design?

So, that's it? That's your "objective" method?

No wonder you are so confused about biological life, manufactured vehicles and imaginary car-animals.

as far as i aware its also prof dawkins way to detect design. are you saying that dawkins is confuse too? good to know.

 

[xianghua]

Sub-species of cats, which would still be cats, yes.
Or extinct, off course.



Ow, I guarantee you that it is.

so a cat cant evolve into something else then a cat even after billions of years. thanks for this clarification.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Did you look under Formal Proof ?

Just the dictionary...that's where I go to get my definitions.

It's trivially true to say that the observations are proof of a phenomenon to be explained, in as much as even if the observations themselves are flawed, we still need an explanation.

It's true, period, and there is nothing at all wrong with the experiment, it was never intended to be anything more than the simple experiment it was. I've questioned folks here on their responses, if you want to even call some of their nonsense replies anything close to a reasonable response, and I'm getting nothing. However, I expected nothing less when I posted it. Actually I didn't expect it to get the credit you just gave it.

What's "flawed", and what more than the "explanation" that I already gave will make it pass as a proper experiment to you? The rest of you...you already had your chance and failed miserably.

Once again, I'm getting a lot of talk, but when asked to reiterate, I get nothing.

Conclusion, nothing as of yet to back their claims, and like proof for evolution I expect no proof for their reasoning why they cannot and should not be expected to provide proof.

Surely there is one honest evolutionist here that recognizes the pitiful corner their comrades (in evolution) have painted themselves into?

First, "there is good reason why we cannot provide proof of evolution", then "there is good reason what we cannot explain what that reason is. Anyone NOT seeing the convenience in all that? Is there anyone in their right mind that wouldn't be suspicious at this point?

This whole thing is hilarious...one for the books.

 

[xianghua]

There is NO evidence that refutes any of the theories of evolution

what kind of evidence it will look like?