Evolution My ToE

[SkepticThinker]

My dear shunyadragon, if I thought you could prove your statements with valid proof, I would take it seriously in that sense. Also, as a person without credentials in the scientific realm, I must say that the explanations presented here and elsewhere are beyond my ken. And so, as far as what was said, I see nothing other than conjecture that proves evolution. Thank you for trying, though. When I say beyond my ken, I am a novice in the scientific realm of conjecture. For instance, I learned that water is H2O, 2 parts hydrogen to 1 part oxygen. But then I learned that water splitting isn't so easy. A whole subject by itself.

Wait a minute here, I see some contradiction.

On the one hand you say that the scientific evidence is too complex and difficult for you to wrap your mind around and understand.
Then in the next sentence you say that it's all just conjecture anyway and doesn't demonstrate the veracity of evolution. (Evolution is a fact of life by the way. It happens.)

Do you see the contradiction in your statements?

I'm wondering how you've determined that the science involved in evolution is based on conjecture, if you have no real understanding of it in the first place? Perhaps you'd be better off stating that you don't know and just leave it at that. It's really the only honest answer, in such a situation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm wondering how you've determined that the science involved in evolution is based on conjecture, if you have no real understanding of it in the first place? Perhaps you'd be better off stating that you don't know and just leave it at that. It's really the only honest answer, in such a situation.

Not unless one shamelessly goes for an argument from incredulity, though.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Similarity of genes just means that Jehovah used a similar "blueprint," if you will, in creating these organisms.
Really when you compare us w/ chimps, there is a huge gulf between man's capabilities and what they call our "nearest cousin" the bonobo: comparing IQ, language creation, application of justice, etc., etc., etc.
And bobobos are our nearest? Lol. The chasm is too great!

Oh okay.

So we have no way of testing something like, who your grandfather is, or if your kids are related to you, because "similarity of genes" just means that god used the same blueprint in creating those organisms?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wait a minute here, I see some contradiction.

On the one hand you say that the scientific evidence is too complex and difficult for you to wrap your mind around and understand.
Then in the next sentence you say that it's all just conjecture anyway and doesn't demonstrate the veracity of evolution. (Evolution is a fact of life by the way. It happens.)

Do you see the contradiction in your statements?

I'm wondering how you've determined that the science involved in evolution is based on conjecture, if you have no real understanding of it in the first place? Perhaps you'd be better off stating that you don't know and just leave it at that. It's really the only honest answer, in such a situation.

Creationists do not seem to understand that claims of "conjecture" etc. place a burden of proof upon them. They pretend that it is a refutation when it is merely an unsupported claim.

 

[ecco]

Certainly that is how a creationist perceives it.

The realist knows there is no controversy except in the minds of Creationists.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I agree. And a recent article about the development of language, including comments from someone I respect and admire for his brilliant use of words (Noam Chomsky), despite protests that it's evolved, really does show the impossibility of genetic evolution, again, despite the theories of those trying to conjecture how it all must have happened by genetic mutations. Alfred Wallace's Problem | Psychology Today

Are you claiming that language which has obviously and demonstrably evolved and diversified over time, didn't actually evolve and diversify over time?
You don't think groups of languages are related?

 

[ecco]

the Bible only says that God did this that or the other but it doesn't explain how

The Bibles I have looked at explicitly state how. God poofed everything into existence. God then took some dirt and made Adam. God then took a rib from Adam and made Eve. God then got so upset that He made it rain for forty days and nights.

What do you mean by "doesn't explain how"?

 

[ecco]

Prove that everything, including our memories of having lived our entire lives, wasn't just created last week. I challenge you. Tripple challenge you.

You don't know!

I know pretty well sure that you don't remember what was going on while you were conceived or while you were first born.

Pathetic!

 

[ecco]

And, I'm beginning to think as dad says here (if I recall correctly) that evolution is, at this point, like a religion. You either believe it, based on belief and thought of philosophical evidence, or you don't.

How silly.

You and Dad have made it very clear from all your posts that your objection to evolution is solely based on your indoctrinated religious beliefs.


You do not require the same level of evidence for your religious beliefs as you claim to want from science. That, in and of itself, shows your comments and posts are disingenuous.

As just one clear example, show evidence for the Great Flood that you and your religious peers so desperately need to believe in.

 

[Alone]

The Bibles I have looked at explicitly state how. God poofed everything into existence. God then took some dirt and made Adam. God then took a rib from Adam and made Eve. God then got so upset that He made it rain for forty days and nights.

What do you mean by "doesn't explain how"?

Bright poofed is not an explanation

The Bibles I have looked at explicitly state how. God poofed everything into existence. God then took some dirt and made Adam. God then took a rib from Adam and made Eve. God then got so upset that He made it rain for forty days and nights.

What do you mean by "doesn't explain how"?

Poofed in your words is the what but not the how, in other words what was poofed together LOL, and he took some dirt and made Adam that is the what, otherwise we would be walking sand people, that doesn't explain how he turned the sand into the epidermis and bones and the organs and on and on and on ECT.....

 

[Jose Fly]

Similarity of genes just means that Jehovah used a similar "blueprint," if you will, in creating these organisms.

But remember.......Hockeycowboy's perspective on this issue HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION!!

He and the other Witnesses at RF just belong to a religion that forbids its members from acknowledging evolution, believe that evolution is Satanically influenced, like to quote the Bible in discussions of biology, and offer as an alternative "Jehovah did it". But don't anyone get the idea that there's anything religious going on! Just....

 

[Alone]

The Bibles I have looked at explicitly state how. God poofed everything into existence. God then took some dirt and made Adam. God then took a rib from Adam and made Eve. God then got so upset that He made it rain for forty days and nights.

What do you mean by "doesn't explain how"?

The first comment"bright poofed is not an explanation" was an accident my "dumb phone" didn't get the text-to-speech accurately so I did not mean to say that! sorry, what I meant to say was "right poofed is not an explanation" again I do apologize please forgive me.?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The first comment"bright poofed is not an explanation" was an accident my "dumb phone" didn't get the text-to-speech accurately so I did not mean to say that! sorry, what I meant to say was "right poofed is not an explanation" again I do apologize please forgive me.?

it happens. Are you curious to learn how we know that the Adam and Eve story is a myth?

 

[Alone]

it happens. Are you curious to learn how we know that the Adam and Eve story is a myth?

Sure I will entertain the thought give it to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure I will entertain the thought give it to me.

Let me see how to approach this. One problem is that most people's level of science education is rather atrocious. That is not necessarily their fault. The education system should be doing a better job. So I may be asking you related questions.

First, does your God lie?

 

[Alone]

Let me see how to approach this. One problem is that most people's level of science education is rather atrocious. That is not necessarily their fault. The education system should be doing a better job. So I may be asking you related questions.

First, does your God lie?

I don't know, I would hope not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know, I would hope not.

Yes, if God lies that is a huge problem. It would mean that any promises of salvation are worthless. So let's take it for granted that he does not lie. If God does not lie, then the stories of Genesis are myth. They still meet the standards of the verse:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Please note that that does not say "literally true". The Genesis stories still work as morality tales or in other words they can by used "for instruction in righteousness". So how do we know that God would have to be a liar for the Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark and other myths are true? The reason is that all of the reliable evidence out there tells us that they did not happen.


And here we get to a major problem. Most creationists will not let themselves understand the concept of evidence. In fact they disqualify themselves from many debates by claiming "there is no evidence for macroevolution" or some other such nonsense. By doing so they either show that they are lying or that they do not understand the concept of evidence. I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are merely ignorant.

Scientists are humans too and have had problems with people denying obvious evidence so they came up with a very good working definition of what scientific evidence is:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. "

That is from Wikipedia, but there are quite a few sources that give the same basic definition. To have evidence one must first have a testable concept, that is a hypothesis, an idea that can be tested on its own merits to see if it is wrong. One cannot test to see if an idea is right, getting one answer right does not guarantee that one's idea is right, but one can show that an idea is wrong since one major failure can refute an idea.

Are you with me so far? Any questions of your own?

 

[Alone]

Yes, if God lies that is a huge problem. It would mean that any promises of salvation are worthless. So let's take it for granted that he does not lie. If God does not lie, then the stories of Genesis are myth. They still meet the standards of the verse:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Please note that that does not say "literally true". The Genesis stories still work as morality tales or in other words they can by used "for instruction in righteousness". So how do we know that God would have to be a liar for the Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark and other myths are true? The reason is that all of the reliable evidence out there tells us that they did not happen.


And here we get to a major problem. Most creationists will not let themselves understand the concept of evidence. In fact they disqualify themselves from many debates by claiming "there is no evidence for macroevolution" or some other such nonsense. By doing so they either show that they are lying or that they do not understand the concept of evidence. I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are merely ignorant.

Scientists are humans too and have had problems with people denying obvious evidence so they came up with a very good working definition of what scientific evidence is:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. "

That is from Wikipedia, but there are quite a few sources that give the same basic definition. To have evidence one must first have a testable concept, that is a hypothesis, an idea that can be tested on its own merits to see if it is wrong. One cannot test to see if an idea is right, getting one answer right does not guarantee that one's idea is right, but one can show that an idea is wrong since one major failure can refute an idea.

Are you with me so far? Any questions of your own?

Yes I am following you so far, some people would say that not having evidence is the substance of faith?

 

[nPeace]

Back then I was rephrasing a point I'd made earlier, in the terms I mentioned above:

There is only one credible explanation of the origin of species on the table, and that's evolution, as expounded by the theory of evolution.

If you disagree, please set out the more credible explanation of the origin of species that you have in mind.

Looking over the statement that precedes your question, I have to say first of all, I don't believe the theory of evolution is the "only one credible explanation of the origin of species". As regards what you mean by "on the table", you will have to explain what you mean by that.
If you mean, (X) that is offered, no. The explanation for the origin, and diversity of life on earth offered at Hebrews 3:4, as well as other places in the Bible, is a credible explanation. It answers all questions regarding life.

However, if by "on the table", you mean, (Z) accepted by the scientific community, then there is no other "credible explanation" from the standpoint of the vast majority of the scientific community.
Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia
The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.
Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific, pseudoscience, or junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

So based on what you mean, would determine my next move. X or Z?
What I do note though is that the three reasons given as to why intelligent design, and "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not accepted by the community, seem no different to a number of things that are accepted by the scientific community... including multiverse, and macroevolution.
Testing hypotheses in macroevolution
Indeed, one of the reasons that macroevolution (changes in biodiversity over time, space and lineages) has sometimes been a controversial topic is that processes underlying the generation of biological diversity generally operate at scales that are not open to direct observation or manipulation. Macroevolutionary hypotheses can be tested by using them to generate predictions then asking whether observations from the biological world match those predictions [philosophical - outside of science (if you disagree I'll be glad to discuss this in detail) See spoiler]. Each study that identifies significant correlations between evolutionary events, processes or outcomes can generate new predictions that can be further tested with different datasets, allowing a cumulative process that may narrow down on plausible explanations, or lead to rejection of other explanations as inconsistent or unsupported. A similar approach can be taken even for unique events, for example by comparing patterns in different regions, lineages, or time periods. I will illustrate the promise and pitfalls of these approaches using a range of examples, and discuss the problems of inferring causality from significant evolutionary associations.

Spoiler

Argumentation theory - Wikipedia
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
Rhetoric of science - Wikipedia

I agree with those who are saying the observations are not fully accounted by the evolution theory., but to the contrary refute those claims.

 

[nPeace]

Yes I am following you so far, some people would say that not having evidence is the substance of faith?

Hope you don't mind me just jumping in to ask one question. I'm just curious. Do you agree with those people who say that not having evidence is the substance of faith?