What is provable science?

[Hockeycowboy]

And the theory of evolution has more facts supporting it than any other theory.

No….I’d say gravity does!
Men have used gravity to their advantage for eons — from hitting targets, to architecture, to Space Agencies, etc.

Hehe.

But you’re right, a lot of facts support evolution: species change over time.

Facts certainly explain organisms’ survival…but not their arrival.

Your demand was satisfied before you posted it here.

I made no demands.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

How many examples of this have you reviewed to determine what the outcome is?

Idk, I haven’t experimented w/ that. I try to avoid frivolous endeavors.

Your local hospital might know, though.


This discussion reminds me of the kid on YouTube, who recorded his test of the screen protector on his smartphone.

He took a hammer and smashed that puppy! Sure enough, the screen protector was unscathed…but his phone underneath it, was destroyed!

You should’ve seen his face! I felt so sorry for him.

But I still laughed!

Have a good night, my cousin.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yep. Now, if we could just get people to trash ‘bad’ religion.
That’s hard, if it’s theirs.

But I guess there would have to be agreement on what would constitute a ‘faulty’ religion?

What do you think?

Could a religion be a ‘good’ one, if it condones hating other people?

Well, to my mind, some obvious examples concerning bad aspects of religion would be the discrimination that many seemingly advocate - towards LGBTQ+ individuals, or as not seeing males and females as having equal rights, or in not seeing children as having as many rights as adults. Plenty more no doubt when people use such terms as evil, sin, destined for Hell, etc., and where it all just tends to 'other' people for whatever reasons - and often seeing them as not human. Which is rather easy to do without religions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No….I’d say gravity does!
Men have used gravity to their advantage for eons — from hitting targets, to architecture, to Space Agencies, etc.

Hehe.

I disagree. Aren't you using a fallacy to support your claim here? Everybody uses it, so it must be the most well-understood and well-supported theory?

Aspirin has been available for 120 years and lots of people use it. Yet we still know little of how it works.

But you’re right, a lot of facts support evolution: species change over time.

I agree. And the evidence supports that over greater time, new taxa arise.

Facts certainly explain organisms’ survival…but not their arrival.

Yes. We do not have a theory for the origin of life that fits the facts.

I made no demands.

The implication in all this is the demand that science be provable, when it does not work on that basis.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Idk, I haven’t experimented w/ that. I try to avoid frivolous endeavors.

Your local hospital might know, though.


This discussion reminds me of the kid on YouTube, who recorded his test of the screen protector on his smartphone.

He took a hammer and smashed that puppy! Sure enough, the screen protector was unscathed…but his phone underneath it, was destroyed!

You should’ve seen his face! I felt so sorry for him.

But I still laughed!

Have a good night, my cousin.

It is revealing what people think science is and how it works.

I am surprised that there is little support that hammers hitting heads is science.

Experiments could be designed, but ethically and morally not carried out. So how could we find out about hammers hitting heads. We would have to review existing evidence from sources like hospitals. Dig down in their records like paleontologists sifting through layers of rock to find the facts.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I agree. And the evidence supports that over greater time, new taxa arise.

Now, I agree with this to a point: within Families, and maybe within Orders, life forms evolve. So new Genera & new species can arise within those higher taxa.

But prokaryotes did not evolve in eukaryotes.
Organisms reproducing asexually did not evolve into males and females engaging in sexual intercourse.

The first organisms of these types, were created by Intelligence; design inference is everywhere you look.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Now, I agree with this to a point: within Families, and maybe within Orders, life forms evolve. So new Genera & new species can arise within those higher taxa.

But prokaryotes did not evolve in eukaryotes.
Organisms reproducing asexually did not evolve into males and females engaging in sexual intercourse.

The first organisms of these types, were created by Intelligence; design inference is everywhere you look.

What exactly are you counting as evidence for design?

Why couldn't sexual organisms arise from asexual ancestors?

What about symbiosis?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Why couldn't sexual organisms arise from asexual ancestors?

Why would it?
Sexual reproduction uses much more energy than asexual, with much less return. I.e., fewer progeny.

What about symbiosis?

Exactly!

What exactly are you counting as evidence for design?

I said it’s “everywhere you look”. (Not only in biology, but including all physics which just happens to be fine-tuned for physical life to flourish here.)

Do you have difficulty w/ that?
If so, why?

In your profile, your religion is Christian…Methodist, if I remember correctly from our conversations.

So I know you believe in God. Just what role did He have in the reality we observe, do you think?

Even if it was all ‘preprogrammed’ in what you believe is the first life, LUCA, why would design be missing?

I think you are dangerously aligning your beliefs much too closely with the atheist agenda. They can’t accept any design. Just the “appearance of design,” per Dawkins. Lol.

Have a good evening, my cousin.