The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[rrobs]

Thus the real issue has been revealed...


It is true non the less.


I did consider the post you replied to.
That you decided to create a strawman in order to reply is a you problem.

Well, I'm not sure how you think. Don't have an answer for you.

 

[gnostic]

Science makes use of sensory verification when dealing with the details of reality.

When scientists talk of observation, they don't necessarily mean just direct looking, hearing and feeling, wellwisher.

We can use instruments, tools or devices to assist with the observation-part of evidence-gathering.

For instance, whenever we use a telescope, we are not actually observing directly stars, planets, galaxies, etc. For instance, telescope can use different type of lens and mirrors, so what we see are actually refracted and reflected. Direct observation mean naked eye viewing of stars and other objects.

Using telescope isn't direct. And even then these instruments would only view object in the visible light range. There are radio telescopes that allow astronomers light outside the visible spectrum, eg microwave and x-ray capabilities. And if you are using filter, once again, you not really looking anything directly when you have filter on top of the lens and mirrors. And if you want a better view, it sometimes better to use telescope that capable of infrared or near-infrared viewing, give us clearer, cleaner and better resolution than normal optical telescope.

To give you another example, in electrical and electronics, we cannot directly observe the electric current, we cannot measure the ampere, voltage, powers and ohms, with our eyes or ears or nose, and I don't recommend touching any live conductor.

What do we use? We use multi-meters or function generator or oscilloscope, etc.

And when you want to measure the speed of moving objects (eg cars, tennis balls), you would use speed camera or radar speed gun.

Indirect observation is a very important part in science and engineering, and any recording and measurements that these devices, instruments or tools can be used as evidence.

Do you think you can tell someone's DNA just by looking at a person?

Sorry, but you are really being ignorant and narrow-minded, if you think that indirect observation doesn't apply as evidence.

 

[rrobs]

English is my native tongue.

Try substituting the biblical definition for the word when you see it in general reading and see how that works out.
Poorly evidenced belief is how the word is commonly used. Better evidenced belief is knowledge. Scientific knowledge is always provisional, as new evidence comes to light the knowledge may change.

Are you suggesting we should read 3,000 year old literature written to a vastly different culture in light of our own times and culture? You do understand the meaning of words change in as little as 100 years, don't you?

 

[rrobs]

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." -- Hebrews 11:1.
Is this the clear, unambiguous definition you refer to? It's very poetic, to be sure, but it's hardly clear.

What's not clear about the words "assurance" and "conviction?"

 

[rrobs]

It implies no such thing. It's simply a claim that we know a great deal more about the mechanisms than we did half a century ago.

I guess you might be right. I suppose it is possible we know less than we knew in the 60s. I don't know.

The basic, underlying concepts still stand.

That's what the ancient flat earthers probably thought. The basics of bloodletting popular in the middle ages was also probably considered an underlying concept. I wonder how our science will fare 3,000 years from now. Could be interesting to see what they might think of our quaint scientific lore.

 

[rrobs]

What evidence would you accept as 'proof' that the bible's wrong?
Much of the geology, physics, history and biology in the bible has been pretty well discredited or is unfounded.

The THEORY of evolution is at least as well evidenced as the heliocentric, round-earth, or germ THEORIES.
I suspect you don't understand the concept of "proof" or the term "theory."

You are trying to insist that an ancient people have the same worldview. Just try to consider their basic mindset. How could they possibly understand the "big bang" theory? To them God, as well as any god of any culture, created everything. The scriptures are no different in that regard than the creation account held by Hinduism. Are you as critical of the Hindus as the Christians? Maybe, but most people seem to admire the Hindu ascetics.

 

[rrobs]

Exactly!!!

People for 4000 years have looked back 50 years and said that the people were bumpkins but NOW everything is finally known. Homo Omnisciencis. Every human who has lived for the last 4000 years has had it all figured out or knew somebody who did.

Yes, but we really do. NOT!

 

[Valjean]

Are you suggesting we should read 3,000 year old literature written to a vastly different culture in light of our own times and culture? You do understand the meaning of words change in as little as 100 years, don't you?

I'm suggesting you read the morning paper or a contemporary novel to see how "faith" is normally used.

What's not clear about the words "assurance" and "conviction?"

What's not clear is "faith." "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." is gobbledygook.
An assurance of things hoped for = a promise? The conviction of things not seen = Unfounded belief?

I guess you might be right. I suppose it is possible we know less than we knew in the 60s. I don't know.

???????

That's what the ancient flat earthers probably thought. The basics of bloodletting popular in the middle ages was also probably considered an underlying concept. I wonder how our science will fare 3,000 years from now. Could be interesting to see what they might think of our quaint scientific lore.

The flat-Earthers' beliefs weren't based on science. They were unevidenced. The same was true for medicine -- no research or testing. As soon as scientific methodology was applied to them they were abandoned.

In 3,000 years, just as today, the basic principles will still stand, because, unlike bloodletting and leeches, they've been empirically verified. The details will have been expanded, hypotheses accepted and discarded, and the big picture will be clearer, but the basic principles have been pretty well locked in place.

I get the impression you're trying to compare folklore and custom to scientific findings. They're not comparable.

 

[Valjean]

You are trying to insist that an ancient people have the same worldview. Just try to consider their basic mindset. How could they possibly understand the "big bang" theory? To them God, as well as any god of any culture, created everything. The scriptures are no different in that regard than the creation account held by Hinduism. Are you as critical of the Hindus as the Christians? Maybe, but most people seem to admire the Hindu ascetics.

I'm trying to suggest the opposite. The ancients' worldviews weren't based on research and testing, they were based on folklore and tradition, they were faith-based. Every group had its own beliefs, they weren't tested, they weren't peer reviewed, they weren't predictive, no-one tried to falsify them. They were opinions, not facts.

The scientific method generates facts, and there is worldwide agreement on the basic facts. Science abhors faith.

The Hindus? They're more diverse and can be even more scatterbrained than the Christians. Hinduism isn't a single religion. It's more a collection of diverse myths from many different tribes, with an underlying theme.

Yes, but we really do. NOT!

??????????

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you suggesting we should read 3,000 year old literature written to a vastly different culture in light of our own times and culture? You do understand the meaning of words change in as little as 100 years, don't you?

Are you talking about the Hindu holy books? Those are the only ones that I know of that are 3,000 years old.

 

[Reddog29]

Actually, it is more likely that life arose at multiple points in our history, there is not one "ancestor" to all life on Earth, but potentially thousands.

Not according to the national institute of the genome society. Their final analysis is that all life form derives from the same ancestor. This is a scientific organization mind you who gave this answer.

To answer in short it is the lungs you and I carry around that proves that their is a God who had a mind much like ours. To dispel any and all theory of evolving here first you have to ask has any human child ever been born who could feed themselves? Answer No

Then you also need to look at basic logic for example who first started to evolve the male species or the female species? Logically all life form must have evolved at the exact same time both male and female because otherwise there is no procreation correct?

Using logic we have three components our human bodies must posses oxygen, food, and water. Much like a car needs engine oil, radiator fluid and of course Gasoline. I hope a further explanation is not necessary to compare the similarities.

Nothing in this world has been made by visible hands. So according to the Judeo’s Christian Bible primarily the book of genesis which is not a science book but the word given to man to give us his creation an explanation as to how we arrived.

Therefore we could not have just landed here because if that’s the case how did we acquire lungs? And if we were planted here by an alien species then why aren’t they here? According to the Bible what you see flying around documented by millions of people
Very well could be what caused our world to be fallen. Why do I say this easy they quit cohabiting with us after the flood a warning to stop interfering with humans. Could be very well possible. To most people a theory. But if they put us here then I think it would seem more likely they would have exposed themselves to the world.

I’m sorry to but according to History and logic wars happen and if you think it will never occur again I’m sorry I’m going with scripture to much evidence exists with nuclear technology. Eventually two sides fight over money and control. It’s been going on since the first ever recorded words handed down. The Bible

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There is no way of knowing that for certain. It is only an inference.

We don't need to know it for certain in order to have good reasons to believe it's true.

I thought I did, but maybe not. Help me out.

A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an observed phenomenon or fact. For example, we directly observe the effects of gravity; that gravity exists is a fact. The theory of gravity is a framework that explains how gravity works through experimentation and ongoing investigation. The theory of evolution is no different. Evolution happens - it has been directly observed; the theory of evolution is a framework that explains how it works and to what extent.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm unaware of when the scriptures were proven wrong.

That entirely depends on how you read it.
If, for example, the Noah story or genesis is to be read literally, then those scriptures most definatly have been proven wrong.

Seems like it'd be as hard to prove that as the THEORY of evolution.

Why did you capitalize and bolded the word "theory"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You have no way of knowing that the scientific mistakes are getting smaller and smaller. Only time can tell if that is the case or not.

Science is very results based.
The fact that we have have enough understanding of physics etc today to be able to build things like high end smartphones, while we didn't no more then 20 years ago, shows that our understanding today is better / more profound then it was 20 years ago.

Which in effect means that the error margin has gotten smaller.

Technology, are like practical tests for the scientific theories that underpin those technologies.

If atomic theory were wrong, nukes wouldn't explode.

I would imagine the folks in the age of enlightenment thought they had it all figured out.

Yeah, it seems like that is the basis for your attempts to rant on science: things that you imagine.

 

[cladking]

A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an observed phenomenon or fact. For example, we directly observe the effects of gravity; that gravity exists is a fact. The theory of gravity is a framework that explains how gravity works through experimentation and ongoing investigation. The theory of evolution is no different. Evolution happens - it has been directly observed; the theory of evolution is a framework that explains how it works and to what extent.

The difference is we know we don't know how gravity works but we think we know how change in species work.

Look and See Science trumps all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no way of knowing that for certain. It is only an inference.

"when you jump from the empire state building without a parachute, you'll die"

"there is no way of knowing that for certain. it is only an inference".


There's your "logic" applied to an idea that doesn't conflict with your a priori religious views. I bet that suddenly, you'll agree that the exact same logic doesn't apply when it doesn't contradict your religious views. Right?

Or do you feel like the above has any merrit?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The scriptures claim they interpret themselves. Therefore I have none of my own.

The 10s of thousands of christian denominations interpreting the same bible differently, disagree.

 

[tas8831]

The difference is we know we don't know how gravity works but we think we know how change in species work.

Look and See Science trumps all.

Right, because physics and biology are totally exactly the same and have the exact same issues.

Real science works, your imaginary science where you are king is just a laugh.

 

[rrobs]

Are you talking about the Hindu holy books? Those are the only ones that I know of that are 3,000 years old.

That's about how old the books are that Moses was inspired to write.

 

[tas8831]

I suggest you learn what "evidence" is, then present some for your baseless assertions.

And he never did....