Is faith the backbone of Science?

[Guy Threepwood]

There must be a point here somewhere...

Maybe it runs like this,
It is possible to convincingly forge art and historical artifacts or misidentoify authorship
10 Most Incredible Forgeries (forgery, fake, art) - ODDEE

Therefore human civilization began in the 20th century and all artifacts of history prior to that are clever forgeries yet to be exposed.

I see, that makes sense..

I knew you were coming around!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Faith is complete trust or confidence in something. Scientists constantly try to disprove theories put forth by others, never taking them as 100% correct.

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact..." Dawkins

 

[leibowde84]

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact..." Dawkins

A "fact" is something that is "indisputably the case". There is no reasonable argument against evolution. All evidence to date confirms the scientific theory. Thus, it is beyond reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean that there aren't scientists constantly trying to improve upon the theory. But, there isn't any evidence that contradicts evolution.

Can you provide any evidence that contradicts evolution discovered by experts in the field of biology? Until now you have provided examples that, in your opinion, poke holes in specific examples of evidence that has been used in the past to confirm evolution. Can you provide any evidence that directly contradicts the scientific theory?

 

[leibowde84]

well few things are more subjective and less reliable than facts!

Case in point. The laws of classical physics were once declared so factual they were utterly 'immutable' and they were far more directly testable, observable, i.e. 'scientific' than evolution.

Likewise the universe was declared static and the idea of a beginning was so impossible as to be declared 'religious pseudoscience' and mocked as 'big bang'


Do you think it was a complete coincidence, that Planck and Lemaitre were skeptics of atheism, men of faith? it was their faith, their skepticism of 'facts' that allowed science to progress.

Creationism, on the other hand, is based on a logical fallacy ... arguments from ignorance (God of the gaps). Because we cannot currently prove how the universe began naturally, God must be responsible.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's not this simple. Technically, theory is more important than fact for the purpose of science. Anyone can observe and feel gravity for example. Gravity, and it existing, it being observable, and it being falsifiable is accepted. It's fact. Then there's the theory of gravitation...

Same for evolution, we can observe it, we can try to falsify it, we can test it, etc. It's both within the framework of accepted science, as per scientific method, and strong enough to be considered fact.

The theory supporting it MIGHT be flimsy. But even then, PROBABLY not as flimsy as you would like to imagine it to be.

Right, so we can directly scientifically observe apples physically falling from trees
as we can observe genetic apples, falling also, not far from their genetic trees

I think we can all be happy calling these facts?

The problems begin when we extrapolate these superficial observations into comprehensive explanations for all observed reality- creating very tempting, intuitive, elegant, and hence well loved and passionately defended theories of everything.

All that aside though, it don't work

No they weren't. You're again mistaking the theory, laws and hypotheses to the actual observed... Phenomena.

Evolution is equally directly testable, observable and as scientific as gravitation.

Let me ask you this: Do you accept "microevolution"?

as above... and so yes, I accept that apples fall from trees, and offspring vary slightly from their parents, all the observable, testable, scientific bits!

Who declared it static?

static, eternal, steady state, there were various theories and names for them popular with atheist cosmologists at the time, with the same explicit rationale, 'no creation = no creator'

Hoyle coined the term 'big bang' to mock the priest Lemaitre's primeval atom theory

Being skeptical of facts is folly, on logical terms alone...

You can be skeptical of the mechanics, theories, laws, etc trying to support the facts. Evolution is fact. The mechanisms governing it, theory. And it's still more than what some people try to reduce it to.

drifting into semantics perhaps, but when Dawkins declares 'evolution a fact', we know he is not referring to just microevolution, he is a staunch Darwinist[/quote]

 

[Jeremiahcp]

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact..." Dawkins

It is a fact. You do realize that "fact" is really just a classification, right? Saying it is in accordance with certain standards.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Creationism, on the other hand, is based on a logical fallacy ... arguments from ignorance (God of the gaps). Because we cannot currently prove how the universe began naturally, God must be responsible.

quite the reverse, Intelligent design does, and always has accepted the scientific evidence of the fossil record, gaps and all, at face value. It also posits known phenomena to account for the origination of the information systems, the crux of the problem in the 21stC

It's Darwinist's, still adhering passionately to the 19th C Victorian age model, that are obliged to make arguments literally from the gaps, filling them with imaginative artistic impressions, hypothetical spontaneous information generating mechanisms.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is a fact. You do realize that "fact" is really just a classification, right? Saying it is in accordance with certain standards.



Evolution Resources from the National Academies

[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact (Mark Twain)

 

[leibowde84]

quite the reverse, Intelligent design does, and always has accepted the scientific evidence of the fossil record, gaps and all, at face value. It also posits known phenomena to account for the origination of the information systems, the crux of the problem in the 21stC

It's Darwinist's, still adhering passionately to the 19th C Victorian age model, that are obliged to make arguments from the gaps, filling them with imaginative artistic impressions, hypothetical spontaneous information generating mechanisms.

What demonstrable, verifiable evidence is there for creationism or intelligent design? All I've heard are nonsense comparisons to watches and rocks spelling words on beaches, which do not qualify as evidence in any way.

 

[Darkstorn]

The problems begin when we extrapolate these superficial observations into comprehensive explanations for all observed reality- creating very tempting, intuitive, elegant, and hence well loved and passionately defended theories of everything.

Stop being dishonest on purpose. NO ONE has ever claimed that evolution is a comprehensive explanation for all observed reality! You are changing the premise without evidence to support your new premise!

That is no one's argument, you cannot use it.

Evolution is fact: It's not a comprehensive explanation. The THEORY of evolution is TRYING at least to be that explanation. But even then, it's NOT a comprehensive explanation for all observed reality. It never tried to be, and no one claims that it is either. You invented this premise.

Strawman alert basically. I feel the rest of whatever point you are trying to make is marred by your intentional dishonesty here.

 

[ratiocinator]

It's Darwinist's, still adhering passionately to the 19th C Victorian age model...

You keep wittering about "Darwinism" and 19th C while ignoring the spectacular confirmation of it by 20th/21st C genetics. There is far, far more evidence the theory of evolution now, than there ever was in Darwin's time.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What demonstrable, verifiable evidence is there for creationism or intelligent design? All I've heard are nonsense comparisons to watches and rocks spelling words on beaches, which do not qualify as evidence in any way.

We have no slam dunk evidence for any explanation, and I think that's the point of this thread, life is a very tough question to solve, when we keep hitting the brakes and trying to arrive prematurely at a destination- we're never going to figure it out!


The point of the analogy is that, you may never find verifiable evidence of any person spelling the word on the beach, you may only find verifiable evidence of a naturalistic mechanism like the waves. But we can still deduce former is the less improbable explanation.

And the analogy is actually heavily biased towards naturalism, as it utterly grants you a mechanism fully capable of the result, something we just don't have for life.

Having said that, yes I believe ID is an argument made very much in the affirmative as well as scrutinizing Darwinism, which in itself is a worthy scientific pursuit

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Stop being dishonest on purpose. NO ONE has ever claimed that evolution is a comprehensive explanation for all observed reality! You are changing the premise without evidence to support your new premise!

That is no one's argument, you cannot use it.

Evolution is fact: It's not a comprehensive explanation. The THEORY of evolution is TRYING at least to be that explanation. But even then, it's NOT a comprehensive explanation for all observed reality. It never tried to be, and no one claims that it is either. You invented this premise.

Strawman alert basically. I feel the rest of whatever point you are trying to make is marred by your intentional dishonesty here.

sticks and stones...

 

[Darkstorn]

sticks and stones...

It's okay, i wasn't expecting a defence from you. I claimed that you invented a premise to support your argument. Yet you failed to provide evidence for your premise...

Try to defend against that if you want to be taken seriously, please?

 

[leibowde84]

We have no slam dunk evidence for any explanation, and I think that's the point of this thread, life is a very tough question to solve, when we keep hitting the brakes and trying to arrive prematurely at a destination- we're never going to figure it out!


The point of the analogy is that, you may never find verifiable evidence of any person spelling the word on the beach, you may only find verifiable evidence of a naturalistic mechanism like the waves. But we can still deduce former is the less improbable explanation.

And the analogy is actually heavily biased towards naturalism, as it utterly grants you a mechanism fully capable of the result, something we just don't have for life.

Having said that, yes I believe ID is an argument made very much in the affirmative as well as scrutinizing Darwinism, which in itself is a worthy scientific pursuit

So, there is no evidence for ID. Thank you for admitting that. And, evolutionary biologists are constantly trying to improve upon the theory of evolution by natural selection. Our understanding of evolution has improved quite a bit since it's inception. So, in no way has anyone "arrived at any destination". If evidence was presented that contradicted the theory of evolution, the experts would take it into account. The problem is that there is no evidence that contradicts the theory.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You keep wittering about "Darwinism" and 19th C while ignoring the spectacular confirmation of it by 20th/21st C genetics. There is far, far more evidence the theory of evolution now, than there ever was in Darwin's time.

Not surprisingly I beg to differ!

Genetics is the reason scientists at the cutting edge of genetic research flipped sides on this.

As with classical physics, we came to understand that the crux of matter ultimately lies in the math, the information systems, code, literally digital code in the case of DNA.

These are issues Darwin could not have dreamed of, and neo-Darwinists like Dawkins are simply unequipped to deal with. It's still an inherently Victorian age model, where a handful of simple immutable laws, given enough space and time to rattle around in, must create jolly interesting results eventually.

The realty, the math, just doesn't support that anymore, it's a royal pain in terms of figuring out what really happened yes, but it's not just skeptics of atheism recognizing these issues now


On the fossil side, the gaps were originally predicted- and crucially so for the theory, to be filled in later with new discoveries. In stark contrast, the gaps have become ever more defined, the explosions ever more explosive

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's okay, i wasn't expecting a defence from you. I claimed that you invented a premise to support your argument. Yet you failed to provide evidence for your premise...

Try to defend against that if you want to be taken seriously, please?

There are more than enough people here who are willing and able to debate without the personal attacks, I just find that more interesting, see you

 

[ratiocinator]

Genetics is the reason scientists at the cutting edge of genetic research flipped sides on this.

As with classical physics, we came to understand that the crux of matter ultimately lies in the math, the information systems, code, literally digital code in the case of DNA.

These are issues Darwin could not have dreamed of, and neo-Darwinists like Dawkins are simply unequipped to deal with. It's still an inherently Victorian age model, where a handful of simple immutable laws, given enough space and time to rattle around in, must create jolly interesting results eventually.

The realty, the math, just doesn't support that anymore, it's a royal pain in terms of figuring out what really happened yes, but it's not just skeptics of atheism recognizing these issues now

The evidence for these assertions is..... missing.

 

[Darkstorn]

There are more than enough people here who are willing and able to debate without the personal attacks, I just find that more interesting, see you

How do you turn that into a personal attack?!

I say it wasn't, and i'm saying you are trying avoidance and distraction in an attempt to avoid having to answer to my VALID POINT. You replied to me, i reply to you, and you use THIS to bail out?

This doesn't exactly fill me with confidence regarding your honesty.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So, there is no evidence for ID. Thank you for admitting that. And, evolutionary biologists are constantly trying to improve upon the theory of evolution by natural selection. Our understanding of evolution has improved quite a bit since it's inception. So, in no way has anyone "arrived at any destination". If evidence was presented that contradicted the theory of evolution, the experts would take it into account. The problem is that there is no evidence that contradicts the theory.

No, as I said, it is made in the affirmative, and yes, some experts certainly have taken the new evidence into account and are pursuing ID science now, unrestrained by the 19thC conventions of Darwinism. But let's not make this a battle of who's scientist army is bigger! surely we can rise above that!?