• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Architect : A Grand Design

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Beyond any reasonable doubt ? That is a legal term, do you know the standard of evidence that exists for something to be ¨ beyond reasonable doubt¨" ?

I assure you, the theory of evolution does not meet the standard.

Please use scientific terms to make your point, not legal ones, that don´t apply.
Science is based on reasonable doubt. There is no proof in science, only amassed evidence. All scientific theories are provisional.

The ToE is one of the best evidenced theories in science.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Beyond any reasonable doubt ? That is a legal term, do you know the standard of evidence that exists for something to be ¨ beyond reasonable doubt¨" ?


Please use scientific terms to make your point, not legal ones, that don´t apply.

The Science of Evolution has been falsified and meets all scientific standards whatever wording you wish to use. 95%+ of all the scientists in the fields associated with evolution do not remotely question evolution as the explanation of the history of life on earth.

The question of reasonable doubt can be applied to subjects outside law.

I assure you, the theory of evolution does not meet the standard.

Your assurances based on your religious agenda, without any qualifications in the science related to evolution, do not meet the standards of science.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
The Science of Evolution has been falsified and meets all scientific standards whatever wording you wish to use. 95%+ of all the scientists in the fields associated with evolution do not remotely question evolution as the explanation of the history of life on earth.

The question of reasonable doubt can be applied to subjects outside law.



Your assurances based on your religious agenda, without any qualifications in the science related to evolution, do not meet the standards of science.
I have no religious agenda in this discussion. So, 95 % of scientists believes evolution is probable beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do 95% of people believe the same ? What rule is there that states only scientists are capable of determining this ?

What rule is there that says lay people cannot determine this ?

What is reasonable doubt, and what is beyond it ?

In using the term loosely, you circle back to the standard idea that only the initiated priesthood is capable of answering the question.

What standard for reasonable doubt do each of these scientists apply ? Are they all using the same standard ?

In law all these questions are answered. Using the term as you do, none are answered.

So, everybody decides subjectively what a reasonable doubt is, what doubt is, and you wind up with a term applied to science that means nothing.

So, 95% of scientists stating evolution is proven beyond a reasonable doubt means nothing, without an applicable standard that all are applying.

Each has an opinion based upon what they think a reasonable doubt is.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Science is based on reasonable doubt. There is no proof in science, only amassed evidence. All scientific theories are provisional.

The ToE is one of the best evidenced theories in science.
Is it proven beyond a reasonable doubt ?

Would it be better for those emphasizing that best evidenced of theories to use another term ?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I have no religious agenda in this discussion.

Yes you do, and it is the theme of the thread you are supporting. Your history of posts on this site is a religious agenda, and not a scientific argument.

So, 95 % of scientists believes evolution is probable beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes conservative estimate.

Do 95% of people believe the same ?

Yes, concerning concerning the foundation science of evolution. Of course there is disagreement on the details and research concerning different aspects of genetics, paleontology, and the organic chemistry of evolution, and, of course there are unknowns, but that is the grounds of further research, and discoveries in science,

What rule is there that states only scientists are capable of determining this ?

Methodological Naturalism

What rule is there that says lay people cannot determine this ?

Methodological Naturalism. The problem is those who lack the scientific background need to base their objections on science and not a religious agenda.

What is reasonable doubt,

The lack of scientific support for a theory or hypothesis that could falsify a theory or hypothesis..

. . . and what is beyond it ?

More scientific discoveries and research.

In using the term loosely, you circle back to the standard idea that only the initiated priesthood is capable of answering the question.

There is no initiated priesthood in science, because the qualification for scientists is education and the ability to publish their research.. The standard is the standards of Methodological Naturalism and organizations like
American Association for the Advancement of Science
AAAS Home | American Association for the Advancement of Science

The standards of the AAAS are the same for ALL the sciences and engineering including the science of evolution. Law has its own organizations and standards.


What standard for reasonable doubt do each of these scientists apply ? Are they all using the same standard ?

Yes, Methodological Naturalism is standardized worldwide in Science.

In law all these questions are answered. Using the term as you do, none are answered.

Assertion without explanation. Based on this statement you reject science.

So, everybody decides subjectively what a reasonable doubt is, what doubt is, and you wind up with a term applied to science that means nothing.

No science determines it objectively base don objective verifiable evidence.

So, 95% of scientists stating evolution is proven beyond a reasonable doubt means nothing, without an applicable standard that all are applying.

No, science does not prove anything, fortunately, Science falsifies theories and hypothesis based on Methodological Naturalism, and objective verifiable evidence.

Each has an opinion based upon what they think a reasonable doubt is.

By definition science is not based on opinions.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Is it proven beyond a reasonable doubt ?

Nothing is proven in science, and nothing is proven in law, that is why beyond a reasonable doubt is used..

Would it be better for those emphasizing that best evidenced of theories to use another term ?

Beyond a reasonable doubt is ok, because it is reasonably descriptive.

I gave this. Falsified by the Standards of science established by Methodological Naturalism, and, of course, the standards of the AAAS.
 
Last edited:

Thief

Rogue Theologian
@Thief would argue that because evolution occurs over time,
& because time doesn't exist, evolution cannot exist.

Now....that's all the time I want to invest in this thread.
in spite of opinion given.....tat was NOT a winning post

movement is real
evolution is movement
I have no problem with God setting a chemistry in motion
and then He waits to see what happens

and I have no problem that God might tweak His creation

Noah's ark
Sodom and Gomorrah

and of course that garden event

ESPECIALLY ….that garden event
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
in spite of opinion given.....tat was NOT a winning post

movement is real
evolution is movement
I have no problem with God setting a chemistry in motion
and then He waits to see what happens

and I have no problem that God might tweak His creation

Noah's ark
Sodom and Gomorrah

and of course that garden event

ESPECIALLY ….that garden event
Movement occurs over time.
But you say the latter doesn't exist.
A puzzlement, eh.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Ever wonder does evolution exist?
Please read!


Architect : A Grand Design

architect-cover-photo.png

This would probably satisfy me - if I had had my brain removed long ago - but unfortunately thus far it is still intact. Simple proposals for simple thinkers seems to be what is on offer here. :rolleyes:
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I have no religious agenda in this discussion. So, 95 % of scientists believes evolution is probable beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do 95% of people believe the same ? What rule is there that states only scientists are capable of determining this ?

What rule is there that says lay people cannot determine this ?
The rule is, experts are more likely than non-experts to understand their particular fields. No, there's nothing preventing laymen from learning about new subjects, but it's best actually to understand a subject and have some ability to reason critically before wading into a discussion about it.

I assumed everyone learned the basics of evolution theory in school. It's the basis for all biology, after all, like arithmetic is the basis for mathematics. But, since posting on RF, it appears there's a sizeable number of people who never learned the basics but nevertheless have strong, uninformed opinions on the subject; people who don't even realize they don't understand the subjects they're bloviating about.
Is it proven beyond a reasonable doubt ?
It's questions like this that brand you as ignorant of the basics of science.
How many times in the past 20 years have people posted about science not proving things?
Would it be better for those emphasizing that best evidenced of theories to use another term ?
Huh? Reword?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
only that you think of time as a physical entity

E=mc2, the speed of light says time exists, but as Einstein correctly stated past, present and future is an illusion.

Space, Energy, Mass, and light cannot exist without time
 
Top