Shocking claim to Macro-evolution!

[Dan From Smithville]

Please explain what you mean by observations in nature.
How can I follow you when you are making so many confusing and vague statements? Why blame me for that?

The phrase was "observations of nature". Part of the reason you have difficulty following these discussions is that you have little knowledge and understanding of science and what scientists do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your question is a bit confusing.
I don't believe the evolutionist view that anything popped into existence from nothing, or nowhere.

This is a false statement. Creationism is the belief that species popped into existence. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that addresses the origin of life and abiogenesis does not hypothesize life spontaneously generated out of nothing and from no where.

Why do you want to pin that view on me?

It fits. Why are you now trying to crawfish your way out of it? Your belief in creation is predicated on that view.

Are you not the one who believes that?

If he understands the evidence, hypotheses of abiogenesis, and the theory of evolution, he has no reason to believe your silly notions.

You appear to be rambling desperately now, with no direction to go.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No I don't mean "they assume that concepts previously demonstrated to be correct are still correct". Where did that come from?

Are you sure? You have claimed you do not understand things many times on this thread. You do not appear to understand the position you are even trying to establish for yourself.

What does that have to do with vestigial organs?

Are you aware that vestigial does not mean without function. I notice that most creationists have substituted that false notion for a valid definition of vestigial.

Perhaps you can explain or demonstrate what you mean, using my last question, which you didn't answer.

As if you have room to complain about others not answering questions when you run from most of the questions put to you and where you do answer it is this rambling attempt to throw it back onto the person asking the question.

I also don't know what you mean by "the sense that creationists usually use the term assume".

Creationist falsely define vestigial as meaning without function. How hard is that to understand?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh, I was not aware the steps followed in the scientific method was a Creationist's notion. No one told me this was wrong, and needed correcting.
Perhaps you can give me the correct procedure, which is not a misleading notion.

Twisting his words has the appearance of a desperate attempt to demean and run from what he did post.

So you do have to do experiments then. I'm a bit confused now. I'm not really sure what you are saying.

I agree with you. You have convinced me that you are not sure of much regarding science. I am certain that you came to this thread with little understanding, but rest assured, you are safe, and will likely leave it with that same understanding.

Science uses data--evidence--to draw conclusions. That data does not have to come from experiments and can come from observing nature directly.

 

[exchemist]

Please explain what you mean by observations in nature.
How can I follow you when you are making so many confusing and vague statements? Why blame me for that?

Not surprising since you seem unable to read. Observations OF nature.

You seem determined not to understand, but I'll try one more time. The defining feature of science is that it develops models of how the natural world works by making observations of nature. Observations of nature lead to hypotheses, which lead to models. The models are tested against more observations of nature.

Religious ideas are not developed in this way at all.

So your statement "So, basically then, in other words, the scientific method itself is a religious approach... in more ways than one" , is obviously pretty silly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No I don't mean "they assume that concepts previously demonstrated to be correct are still correct". Where did that come from?
What does that have to do with vestigial organs?
Perhaps you can explain or demonstrate what you mean, using my last question, which you didn't answer.

I also don't know what you mean by "the sense that creationists usually use the term assume".

Your post is a good example of why I asked to what you mean by the word "assume". The version that I used and you asked me where it came from is the only sort of assumption that scientists are allowed to make. And since your answer to my question was no, then no, by the definition that you are using scientists did not make assumptions.

 

[Darkstorn]

I always wondered this:

Why are all the "shocking claims" shocking for entirely different reasons than the OP thinks?

I.E The title is only accurate in the way that those claims are shockingly bad.

 

[exchemist]

Oh, I was not aware the steps followed in the scientific method was a Creationist's notion. No one told me this was wrong, and needed correcting.
Perhaps you can give me the correct procedure, which is not a misleading notion.


So you do have to do experiments then. I'm a bit confused now. I'm not really sure what you are saying.

You really are being deliberately obtuse, now, and frankly it is something of an effort not to laugh at you.

Do you think observing the shape of a valley is doing an experiment?

Do you think looking through a telescope is doing an experiment?

Do you think collecting fossils is doing an experiment?

Do you think counting the petals on a flower is doing an experiment?

Most people would say not, I think.

Perhaps, though, even you may be able to discern something that is nevertheless common to these activities.

 

[nPeace]

Not surprising since you seem unable to read. Observations OF nature.

I can't read. I can write long essays and Gish Gallop. Something is wrong with this picture.
I get it. Beware of RF members who like to tell you what you can't do... and what you do.

You said, "What you have to do in science is make reproducible observations of nature".
That may sound coherent to you, because you know in your mind what you are trying to say, even if you don't express it as clearly in words as you understand it in mind. It sounds confusing to me.
Reproducible observations of nature? Huh... Pardon me? I don't understand.

That's why I asked what you meant by "observations of nature", so that I could try to understand what exactly you are saying.
I would think all it would take would be a simple explanation.

Recall, you also said this...
I have explained to you it is all about observation of nature.
What... Pardon me? How clear an expression is that? What does that say?
Every single person make observations of nature. Even religious people, so you lost me on the last phrase...
...an activity that plays no part at all in religion.
Say what? No.

Let me say though that from my understanding, what you explained in regard to ifs, buts, and maybes, seem to be not about the scientific method.
If you run an experiment, on a number of models, the scientific method is applied to each model, is that not so?

The results, as to whether one is better, or they are the same, I don't see that has anything to do with the methods used to reach the result. Does it?
So, say one rerun the experiment a million times, the results are in.
Determining if this model, but that model, or maybe the other model, would that not require more, and further experimental observations - using the scientific method - to determine which should be eliminated?

When applying the scientific method, isn't careful observation required, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation?
So if you are still saying that the ifs, buts, and maybes, are all a part of the scientific method, I have to agree with you, and say, it's a religious approach for more reasons than one.

You don't seem to agree, of course, or understand what I mean, so I will explain.
First, scientist still depend on cognition.
They still need to make judgments, or interpretations, on the data, or observations made.
They still need to use their common sense, reason, logic, etc., to draw conclusions.
No different to a religious approach.

Second, they start with the assumption that the conclusions reached must be based only on laws of nature and there is nothing else except what we see and discover through science.
That is a religious approach.

You seem determined not to understand, but I'll try one more time. The defining feature of science is that it develops models of how the natural world works by making observations of nature. Observations of nature lead to hypotheses, which lead to models. The models are tested against more observations of nature.

Religious ideas are not developed in this way at all.

So your statement "So, basically then, in other words, the scientific method itself is a religious approach... in more ways than one" , is obviously pretty silly.

I can't understand. Okay, thank you RF member.
Scientific ideas are no different to religious ideas.
By the way, anyone can use the scientific method, without having the title, "scientist".

 

[nPeace]

You really are being deliberately obtuse, now, and frankly it is something of an effort not to laugh at you.

Do you think observing the shape of a valley is doing an experiment?

Do you think looking through a telescope is doing an experiment?

Do you think collecting fossils is doing an experiment?

Do you think counting the petals on a flower is doing an experiment?

Most people would say not, I think.

Perhaps, though, even you may be able to discern something that is nevertheless common to these activities.

I didn't say any of this foolishness. You did.
You said...
What you have to do in science is make reproducible observations of nature. Whether this is by an "experiment" (in a lab with white coats, test tubes and the full as-seen-on-TV stereotype) or by observation through a telescope, or in fieldwork of some kind, or anything else, does not matter.
Get a grip of your ego. It's pathetic now.

 

[nPeace]

Your post is a good example of why I asked to what you mean by the word "assume". The version that I used and you asked me where it came from is the only sort of assumption that scientists are allowed to make. And since your answer to my question was no, then no, by the definition that you are using scientists did not make assumptions.

I'm not following you.
Do you care to explain, and at the same time respond to my query, which you seem, at least it appears to me, you are avoiding?

 

[exchemist]

I didn't say any of this foolishness. You did.
You said...
What you have to do in science is make reproducible observations of nature. Whether this is by an "experiment" (in a lab with white coats, test tubes and the full as-seen-on-TV stereotype) or by observation through a telescope, or in fieldwork of some kind, or anything else, does not matter.
Get a grip of your ego. It's pathetic now.

Which word is it that you are having trouble with:-

1) reproducible?

2) observation?

3) nature?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I can't read. I can write long essays and Gish Gallop. Something is wrong with this picture.
I get it. Beware of RF members who like to tell you what you can't do... and what you do.

This does not eliminate the fact that sometimes those members are correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not following you.
Do you care to explain, and at the same time respond to my query, which you seem, at least it appears to me, you are avoiding?

Please, you run away far too often to ever accuse anyone of avoiding something. And I do not know if I can simplify it any more for you. Specifically what do you not understand?

I responded to your queries, even though at times the questions were poorly formed. Perhaps you need to work on your questions a bit. By your apparent definition of "assumption" scientists do not make assumptions. I asked you to define in your own words what you meant by that term. I offered one definition that was correct, but you did not like.

If you want answers to your questions you must be ready to define the terms that you use.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Which word is it that you are having trouble with:-

1) reproducible?

2) observation?

3) nature?

I have trouble figuring out what it is he is trying to say and much of what he posts seems incoherent.

 

[exchemist]

I can't read. I can write long essays and Gish Gallop. Something is wrong with this picture.
I get it. Beware of RF members who like to tell you what you can't do... and what you do.

You said, "What you have to do in science is make reproducible observations of nature".
That may sound coherent to you, because you know in your mind what you are trying to say, even if you don't express it as clearly in words as you understand it in mind. It sounds confusing to me.
Reproducible observations of nature? Huh... Pardon me? I don't understand.

That's why I asked what you meant by "observations of nature", so that I could try to understand what exactly you are saying.
I would think all it would take would be a simple explanation.

Recall, you also said this...
I have explained to you it is all about observation of nature.
What... Pardon me? How clear an expression is that? What does that say?
Every single person make observations of nature. Even religious people, so you lost me on the last phrase...
...an activity that plays no part at all in religion.
Say what? No.

Let me say though that from my understanding, what you explained in regard to ifs, buts, and maybes, seem to be not about the scientific method.
If you run an experiment, on a number of models, the scientific method is applied to each model, is that not so?

The results, as to whether one is better, or they are the same, I don't see that has anything to do with the methods used to reach the result. Does it?
So, say one rerun the experiment a million times, the results are in.
Determining if this model, but that model, or maybe the other model, would that not require more, and further experimental observations - using the scientific method - to determine which should be eliminated?

When applying the scientific method, isn't careful observation required, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation?
So if you are still saying that the ifs, buts, and maybes, are all a part of the scientific method, I have to agree with you, and say, it's a religious approach for more reasons than one.

You don't seem to agree, of course, or understand what I mean, so I will explain.
First, scientist still depend on cognition.
They still need to make judgments, or interpretations, on the data, or observations made.
They still need to use their common sense, reason, logic, etc., to draw conclusions.
No different to a religious approach.

Second, they start with the assumption that the conclusions reached must be based only on laws of nature and there is nothing else except what we see and discover through science.
That is a religious approach.


I can't understand. Okay, thank you RF member.
Scientific ideas are no different to religious ideas.
By the way, anyone can use the scientific method, without having the title, "scientist".

I think you know perfectly well and this is trolling. Nobody can be that stupid.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not following you.
Do you care to explain, and at the same time respond to my query, which you seem, at least it appears to me, you are avoiding?

I do not understand. What is it you are asking about? What do you think is expressing avoidance in direct responses to you and questions asked of you?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I can't read. I can write long essays and Gish Gallop. Something is wrong with this picture.
I get it. Beware of RF members who like to tell you what you can't do... and what you do.

You said, "What you have to do in science is make reproducible observations of nature".
That may sound coherent to you, because you know in your mind what you are trying to say, even if you don't express it as clearly in words as you understand it in mind. It sounds confusing to me.
Reproducible observations of nature? Huh... Pardon me? I don't understand.

That's why I asked what you meant by "observations of nature", so that I could try to understand what exactly you are saying.
I would think all it would take would be a simple explanation.

Recall, you also said this...
I have explained to you it is all about observation of nature.
What... Pardon me? How clear an expression is that? What does that say?
Every single person make observations of nature. Even religious people, so you lost me on the last phrase...
...an activity that plays no part at all in religion.
Say what? No.

Let me say though that from my understanding, what you explained in regard to ifs, buts, and maybes, seem to be not about the scientific method.
If you run an experiment, on a number of models, the scientific method is applied to each model, is that not so?

The results, as to whether one is better, or they are the same, I don't see that has anything to do with the methods used to reach the result. Does it?
So, say one rerun the experiment a million times, the results are in.
Determining if this model, but that model, or maybe the other model, would that not require more, and further experimental observations - using the scientific method - to determine which should be eliminated?

When applying the scientific method, isn't careful observation required, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation?
So if you are still saying that the ifs, buts, and maybes, are all a part of the scientific method, I have to agree with you, and say, it's a religious approach for more reasons than one.

You don't seem to agree, of course, or understand what I mean, so I will explain.
First, scientist still depend on cognition.
They still need to make judgments, or interpretations, on the data, or observations made.
They still need to use their common sense, reason, logic, etc., to draw conclusions.
No different to a religious approach.

Second, they start with the assumption that the conclusions reached must be based only on laws of nature and there is nothing else except what we see and discover through science.
That is a religious approach.


I can't understand. Okay, thank you RF member.
Scientific ideas are no different to religious ideas.
By the way, anyone can use the scientific method, without having the title, "scientist".

What are you really saying here? Can you summarize it succinctly?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I didn't say any of this foolishness. You did.
You said...
What you have to do in science is make reproducible observations of nature. Whether this is by an "experiment" (in a lab with white coats, test tubes and the full as-seen-on-TV stereotype) or by observation through a telescope, or in fieldwork of some kind, or anything else, does not matter.
Get a grip of your ego. It's pathetic now.

Why is it foolish? That is what scientists do. You are not making sense. Your post just looks like an attempt at an ad hominem based on a false premise.

 

[nPeace]

Please, you run away far too often to ever accuse anyone of avoiding something. And I do not know if I can simplify it any more for you. Specifically what do you not understand?

I responded to your queries, even though at times the questions were poorly formed. Perhaps you need to work on your questions a bit. By your apparent definition of "assumption" scientists do not make assumptions. I asked you to define in your own words what you meant by that term. I offered one definition that was correct, but you did not like.

If you want answers to your questions you must be ready to define the terms that you use.

Okay, I will take little steps. In this post, when I asked
1. Is it based on science?
Surely you must have understood what "it" referred to, in order to answer positively or negatively.
So what did you answer yes to? What is "it"?