Why the Theory of Evolution is True. Part 1: What is Science?

[Secret Chief]

How on earth is that a relevant question to ask about an axiom?

Because:
"One can restate his first axiom as "The universe exists independent of our minds.""
Without minds, nothing can be known. Therefore axioms do NOT exist independent of minds.
So it is an entirely pertinent question to pose imo.

 

[McBell]

When you shut down the first of many doctor sponsored investigations on the effect of spiritual pentecostals prayers with verified results... you haven't said I am wrong... you just don't want to explore the science investigation of it.

In effect saying "I'm not interested".

And what was the scientific conclusion?

Oh yeah, there is nothing to indicate, outside the want/.need/etc,. to indicate prayer/spirits had anything to do with it.

You are still presenting spirit as nothing more than a gap filler.

I can do the exact same thing by filling the gap with Russells Teapot.
But the fact that I have just as much evidence for Russells Teapot as you have for spirits seems to upset you.

Now since I do not have a want/need/wish/desire/etc to fill the gap with spirit (or Russells Teapot) I am still waiting for you present something that does not simply boil down to want/desire.

 

[McBell]

I didn't and no.

You didn't?

I wonder who it is posting under your account...

In before someone inevitably demands that @Heyo define what he means by 'real' in his first axiom of science...

One can restate his first axiom as "The universe exists independent of our minds."

How can that be known?

 

[Secret Chief]

You didn't?

I wonder who it is posting under your account...

I don't know but you are clearly on to something.

 

[Kenny]

And what was the scientific conclusion?

Oh yeah, there is nothing to indicate, outside the want/.need/etc,. to indicate prayer/spirits had anything to do with it.

You are still presenting spirit as nothing more than a gap filler.

I can do the exact same thing by filling the gap with Russells Teapot.
But the fact that I have just as much evidence for Russells Teapot as you have for spirits seems to upset you.

Now since I do not have a want/need/wish/desire/etc to fill the gap with spirit (or Russells Teapot) I am still waiting for you present something that does not simply boil down to want/desire.

Back to flat-earth statements. Very unscientific

 

[McBell]

Back to flat-earth statements. Very unscientific

*yawn*
You should stick to the choir.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Idd it won't be.
Instead it would be the ancestor of all of those.


View attachment 42190


Evolution produces branching patters.
Species can't jump branches. They can only split in subbranches.

The root of the tree is the LUCA.

So...eukaryotes are...prokaryotes?

Your Law of Monophy has failed.

 

[Heyo]

LOL....so why was it brought into the discussion?

Because, as I said right in the next sentence, you need to understand.

You remember I said a problem with understanding often doesn't lie in the subject itself but on a deeper level? Your problem isn't that you don't understand evolution, your problem is that you don't understand science.

But I don't believe that they do know that much about the Universe......they have limited knowledge at present, but compared to what there is still to know....they know very little IMO.

As evidenced by this. You don't grasp the difference between a potential (can be known) and an actuality (is known).
Do you have a drivers license? Probably. But do you have an aviation license? I assume not. So, actual, you don't have an aviation license. Do you believe you could get one, if you wanted? If you do, you are like a scientist. You don't have the knowledge to get a license but you believe that you can get the knowledge to apply for a license.

Since I am only interested in evolution, I'll stay with it...you can do whatever you wish with the rest of science......it does not relate to the things I am wanting to discuss....

You're like a kid who doesn't know fractions (and doesn't want to learn) but claims to know that calculus doesn't work.

You named the thread...."
Why the Theory of Evolution is True. Part 1: What is Science?"
Please stick to evolution or talk to yourself.... You cannot lead me to accept evolution unless the science is accurate...and we can all see that it is more suggestive than it is provable.

Are you kidding me? A few weeks? Why? What can you offer in a few weeks that you cannot offer right now.....

Knowledge. The ToE is a scientific theory and you can't understand it if you can't understand what science is. I am trying to show you all the fundaments on which the ToE rest.
Maybe I didn't go deep enough. As seen above you have a problem with actuality and potentiality. That is an even deeper level than the basics of science.
A few weeks may be optimistic.

Where do you see the human race in 100 years? I honestly don't think we can sustain life here under the present circumstances.....we poison everything we touch. The earth is screaming out for help but it never comes.....we just see more of the same abuse of the planet and each other. I am grateful that I have a hope for the future....what do you have?

People abuse the planet because they don't understand science. Because they don't understand science they dismiss the warnings of the climate scientists. They feel no shame in not understanding science because others don't either and tell them and themselves that is OK.
You are part of the problem if you think science isn't important.

I'm not sure I want to to go through what you have in mind....I have way more interesting topics to discuss and I doubt very much that you can provide anything I haven't heard a thousand times before.....

I could try to explain evolution to you starting from your misunderstanding. But that would inevitably lead down to the level where the misunderstanding really is. And we'd have to go the way up again. I consider that unproductive. It would take double the time than the approach to start at page 1.
But I'd understand if you'd drop out. As I said in the other thread, science is hard. When you have learned as much, it would already be a success.
When you start talking about evolution and precede that by "I don't understand science, but ...", it would take away much of the strive.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What then? How can we reinterpret the evidence now in the light of this new finding? I can only think of one possibility - intelligent deception by a supernatural god or powerful extraterrestrial society capable of setting the world up to look like evolution had occurred, but accidentally or deliberately left a clue that it hadn't that was eventually found.

That would be an argument from ignorance. ie: "can't think of any other way, so it must be this thing right here for which there isn't a shred of evidence, but how else would you explain it?"

ID would still have all its work ahead of itself to actually support its case with positive evidence.

Evidence that falsifies evolution, would only falsify evolution. It would not demonstrate something else. Not necessarily anyway.

Wouldn't we need to assume that all of those strata in the geologic column were planted, with forms that look less like extant forms being found deeper than those more closely resembling what we see today, including setting up the radioisotopes to give ratios suggesting that the deepest form were the oldest, since this is how it appears absent the falsifying discovery. But now we know that that did not happen.

All that evidence would still exist. Finding a human in pre-cambrian strate would mean that that human is as old as the pre-cambrian strata (assuming there isn't any evidence suggesting it was planted there dishonestly).

So again, at best, the answer would be "we don't know". Not "some god dun it".
You'ld actually require positive evidence supporting the hypothesis that "some god/being dun it".

Anyway, evolution will almost certainly never be falsified, since that would leave only this second scenario as a possibility, an idea that iis presently a sever violation of Occam's call for parsimony.

It wouldn't. I could make up any number of scenario's that don't include any "designers" but which would be just as likely. Since the ID hypothesis doesn't have a shred of evidence, the bar for such scenario's is set quite low

For example, take the human in pre-cambrian strata.
I could for example say that evolution is still standing tall and that this human is just the result of future humans inventing time travel. And you know what? That would still be more likely then an ID, because at that point, we don't need to assume anything supernatural. Only that future humans come up with technology far more advanced then ours.

And funny you should mention Occam's Razor. Using that razor: time travelling humans require less assumptions then supernatural designers.

But add that falsifying finding, and this powerful deceiver hypothesis jumps to the top of the list as the only narrative that accounts for all findings.

Disagree.

Unless you can think of an alternate, competing narrative.

No, doesn't matter. The "unless" is the hallmark of the argument from ignorance. One requires positive evidence in support of the hypothesis. Saying things like "how else do you explain it?", as if the lack of an actual evidence based explanation makes any random non-evidenced explanation more likely...

What I would like to remind the Christian creationists is that the god of the Christian Bible is already irretrievable ruled out by the current evidence with or without the falsifying evidence, and showing that the scientific theory is false does nothing to restore that god.

Yep! Agree completely.
The (literal) biblical narrative is demonstrably incorrect.

We can't disprove a "generic" god, but we most certainly can disprove specific gods that come with specific (testable) claims.

Nor does it establish that a supernatural agent exist or was the deceptive intelligent designer, since a naturalistic explanation still remains in which on some distant planet or moon, abiogenesis, evolution, and deep time combined to give us naturally derived intelligent designers.

That is true. Off course.... we all know who cdesign proponentsists mean when they speak about a "designer". And a naturally evolved alien, really isn't it.

In fact there is no burden of proof with such people, since that only applies when dealing with a person capable of dispassionate critical analysis. What can you prove to a person who decides what is true about the world by faith if all you have is reason applied to evidence, and they don't care about that?

What can you prove to a person who has a huge stake in not understanding what you are trying to demonstrate, and who will not participate in the process cooperatively or in good faith with an open mind willing to consider your argument? Was it this thread where a poster wrote for others to go ahead and give their best arguments so he could punch holes in them? He's not interested in evaluating these arguments in good faith, but in repelling them away.

The only reasons to write to these people is to teach others that can and do use reason and evidence, or to practice your writing skills or refine your arguments. Or entertainment, but I find no pleasure in this activity any longer. Reading them is like listening to Trump. It's not interesting or useful.

Your thoughts?

Completely agree, and well said.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When you shut down the first of many doctor sponsored investigations on the effect of spiritual pentecostals prayers with verified results... you haven't said I am wrong... you just don't want to explore the science investigation of it.

In effect saying "I'm not interested".

No proper study has ever shown that prayer works.

Double blind studies concerning hospital patients who were being prayed for, didn't show any positive signals compared to the control group.
In fact, in studies where the patients knew they were being prayed for, they actually did worse.

As for studies concerning the effect of prayer on the one who's doing the praying, these results are consistent with placebo effects.

So prayer is shown to be worthless / useless in that sense.

As for the "mental strength" gained by a believer be living his faith, those are completely consistent with other people's way of coping with things. For some it's music, for others it's meditation, for even others it's helping animals, etc. So while such psychological advantages can manifest through religious faith, the exact same thing can be accomplished by other means. So there too, it is shown that faith is not the actual cause of it. It rather is psychological processes triggered by it - and many things can trigger that.

Maybe you should cite those studies you think "prove" otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So...eukaryotes are...prokaryotes?

1. you seem to be thinking of modern day prokaryotes. Obviously eukaryotes didn't evolve from present day prokaryotes

2. origins of eukaryotes is very hard to study, as it is microscopic life which even if it left fossils, you can't exactly dissect it. So we can pretty much only look at present day cells and do comparative studies on it.

3. Eukaryote - Wikipedia

Your Law of Monophy has failed.

1. it's not "my" law

2. asserting that it fails by making blanket innaccurate statements, is not the same as actually demonstrating that it fails.

3. it is well known that in the world of single celled organisms, bacteria, etc Horizontal Gene Transfer is a thing. So it should come as no surprise that in the early days, when single celled (or even no-celled) was all that existed, the branching tree is a bit messy and more bushy. This is not a problem for the law of monophy. The weird things early life did, is not going to manifest in more complex life. Dogs will not be giving birth to cats.

 

[Kenny]

No proper study has ever shown that prayer works.

Double blind studies concerning hospital patients who were being prayed for, didn't show any positive signals compared to the control group.
In fact, in studies where the patients knew they were being prayed for, they actually did worse.

As for studies concerning the effect of prayer on the one who's doing the praying, these results are consistent with placebo effects.

So prayer is shown to be worthless / useless in that sense.

Yes, I have read those studies... and although within the scope of what they did would be true, this is why (as a Christian) I would not agree with them:

First, Matthew 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Many prayers aren't effective because they use the mode of repeating something over and over again. Yes, they prayed. Yes, they were sincere in their prayers - but they thought that by the multitude of their praying, it was going to make a difference. Jesus said... that isn't prayer.

Second: 1 John 5;14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: 15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

Some people pray but don't pray according to God's will. Are their prayers heartfelt? Yes. But did they pray according to God's will - many time not because of wrong teaching.

Last (but there are more) - Mark 11:24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them. Some people pray but don't believe they have received what they are praying for.

That is why I don't agree with the study. They really didn't deal with all variable - like a petri dish that is contaminated and then they wonder why the results aren't working.

In my view, good science is when they take what is happening, document it and see if there is a correlation between effective prayer and miracles.

Global Medical Research Institute – Applying rigorous methods of evidence-based medicine to study Christian Spiritual Healing practices

this is such an organization that uses people that are from Harvard (perhaps others too) to study the cases.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I wasn't playing any "game."

Whether or not you knew it, I think you were.

 

[Secret Chief]

Whether or not you knew it, I think you were.

Well, believe it or not, I was simply trying to be as clear as possible. Perhaps I failed. Never mind (haha).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, I have read those studies... and although within the scope of what they did would be true, this is why (as a Christian) I would not agree with them:

First, Matthew 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Many prayers aren't effective because they use the mode of repeating something over and over again. Yes, they prayed. Yes, they were sincere in their prayers - but they thought that by the multitude of their praying, it was going to make a difference. Jesus said... that isn't prayer.

Right, right.... they were "praying wrong". uhu.

Second: 1 John 5;14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: 15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

Some people pray but don't pray according to God's will. Are their prayers heartfelt? Yes. But did they pray according to God's will - many time not because of wrong teaching.

Funny variation of the no true scottsman.

When study after study shows no effects, then it's not because praying doesn't work. No, it "has to be" because they did it wrong.

In my view, good science is when they take what is happening, document it and see if there is a correlation between effective prayer and miracles.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Global Medical Research Institute – Applying rigorous methods of evidence-based medicine to study Christian Spiritual Healing practices

this is such an organization that uses people that are from Harvard (perhaps others too) to study the cases.

View attachment 42242

Anecdotal nonsense that tries to imply that correlation implies causation while at the same time completely ignoring the many more cases where people simply die, eventhough they also pray and are being prayed for.

Proper studies on this show the results as being consistent with no effect. And in such results, you'll always have the occasional positive signal. What these guys are doing, is taking those positive signals and imply that the correlation is causational. Which is off course nonsense.

Here's how they do their "data collecting":

I could do the same thing and just change "change in health during or after prayer" and change it into "during or after rain" or "during or after drinking wine" and get the same results.

What about all the other cases of people praying without having any changes in health?
Or how about all the people that died of a heart attack during or after prayer?


Call me when a "christian healing" makes an amputee's limbs grow back.

 

[Kenny]

Right, right.... they were "praying wrong". uhu.

If you have a problem with that, talk to Jesus.

Funny variation of the no true scottsman.

When study after study shows no effects, then it's not because praying doesn't work. No, it "has to be" because they did it wrong.

So, your position is to throw out logic and don't follow instructions. I can imagine you putting things together when you receive a package.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Flat-earth thinking. So, when you drop a ball, an apple, an iron or simply fall, there is no correlation between gravity and things falling down.

Anecdotal nonsense that tries to imply that correlation implies causation while at the same time completely ignoring the many more cases where people simply die, eventhough they also pray and are being prayed for.

Proper studies on this show the results as being consistent with no effect. And in such results, you'll always have the occasional positive signal. What these guys are doing, is taking those positive signals and imply that the correlation is causational. Which is off course nonsense.

Here's how they do their "data collecting":

I could do the same thing and just change "change in health during or after prayer" and change it into "during or after rain" or "during or after drinking wine" and get the same results.

What about all the other cases of people praying without having any changes in health?
Or how about all the people that died of a heart attack during or after prayer?


Call me when a "christian healing" makes an amputee's limbs grow back.

There is one more reason that fits you

Matthew 13:58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Meanwhile, so many people are enjoying the benefits of prayer.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you have a problem with that, talk to Jesus.

Or another christian who can tell me how you are actually the one "praying wrong".

So, your position is to throw out logic and don't follow instructions.

Nobody in the study is being told on how to pray.

Perhaps you can set up a new double blind study and instruct the people on how to "pray correctly".

I'll bet all my money that the results will be the same.

I can imagine you putting things together when you receive a package.

yea well... apparantly unlike Jesus Inc., companies like Ikea and Lego have figured out how to be clear in their instructions.

Flat-earth thinking

Errr.... no. Correlation factually does not imply causation.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

So, when you drop a ball, an apple, an iron or simply fall, there is no correlation between gravity and things falling down.

Correlation does not IMPLY causation. That's not an assertion that there is NO causal link. It just means that it doesn't IMPLY that there is one.

You understand what the word "implies" means, right?

Causation needs to be demonstrated, not just asserted. You need to actually demonstrate the causal chain of events that underpins the correlation.

Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia

There is one more reason that fits you

Matthew 13:58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Meanwhile, so many people are enjoying the benefits of prayer.

Or so they say.
Meanwhile, you completely ignore the many more people that die in agony, regardless of prayer.

And at the end of the day, every single proper study shows at best a placebo effect and otherwise a result consistent with random occurances.

 

[Kenny]

Or another christian who can tell me how you are actually the one "praying wrong".

I'm always open for instruction to improve the capacity.

Nobody in the study is being told on how to pray.

Perhaps you can set up a new double blind study and instruct the people on how to "pray correctly".

I'll bet all my money that the results will be the same.

EXACTLY! So, just go "hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm" for 8 hours or "what's up.... what's up.... what's up..." and then say you have a good study.

yea well... apparantly unlike Jesus Inc., companies like Ikea and Lego have figured out how to be clear in their instructions.

My children do have a lego set and it does come with instructions. (if you want to build a certain thing).

I know you are trying to make a point, but it doesn't jive.

Errr.... no. Correlation factually does not imply causation.

Correlation does not IMPLY causation. That's not an assertion that there is NO causal link. It just means that it doesn't IMPLY that there is one.

You understand what the word "implies" means, right?

Causation needs to be demonstrated, not just asserted. You need to actually demonstrate the causal chain of events that underpins the correlation.

Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia

doesn't IMPLY doesn't translate into there isn't any correlation/causation as you trip and fall.

Or so they say.
Meanwhile, you completely ignore the many more people that die in agony, regardless of prayer.

And at the end of the day, every single proper study shows at best a placebo effect and otherwise a result consistent with random occurances.

So, let's not use cancer treatments because so many people die and are in agony. Let's not use COVID treatments because so many people die.

And, at the end of the day, placebo effects are true and correct if you were never instructed how to pray. I wonder how many people would not be healed if doctors were never "instructed".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

EXACTLY! So, just go "hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm" for 8 hours or "what's up.... what's up.... what's up..." and then say you have a good study.

I'ld think the religious know how to pray in their religion.
You seem to be of the opinion that all who took part in those studies were "praying wrong". Which is kind of strange since you likely don't know any of these people.

Sounds like you are just assuming it because you don't like the results of the study.
As I said: set up your own double blind study using the same methods and setup of those other studies and you hand pick all the people you think are "praying correctly" and see if the results differ.

I'll bet all my money that the results will be the same.

My children do have a lego set and it does come with instructions. (if you want to build a certain thing).
I know you are trying to make a point, but it doesn't jive.

I doesn't jive because you again don't like the obvious conclusion.
That conclusion being that Lego and Ikea succeed in being clear in their instructions while your all-powerfull deity apparantly can not.

doesn't IMPLY doesn't translate into there isn't any correlation/causation as you trip and fall.

You have succesfully repeated what I just said. Let me repeat once more:

Correlation does not IMPLY causation. That's not an assertion that there is NO causal link. It just means that it doesn't IMPLY that there is one.


There's no tripping and falling here on my end. You were the one that implied that correleation DOES imply causation. This is not the case.

So, let's not use cancer treatments because so many people die and are in agony.

Cancer treatment demonstrably works.
You are making zero sense.

Let's not use COVID treatments because so many people die.

There is no COVID treatment yet. There is only "assistance".

Having said that, medical science demonstrably works. Double blind experiments for working meds actually show clearly that the patients that receive the medication do much better then those in the control group. These results are consistent with working medication and not with mere placebo effects.

Your comparision is completely useless and wrong.

And, at the end of the day, placebo effects are true and correct if you were never instructed how to pray. I wonder how many people would not be healed if doctors were never "instructed".

You make zero sense.
Medical science demonstrably works as double blind experiments clearly show.
Praying demonstrably doesn't work as double blind experiments clearly show.


You're obviously in denial.

 

[Kenny]

I'ld think the religious know how to pray in their religion.
You seem to be of the opinion that all who took part in those studies were "praying wrong". Which is kind of strange since you likely don't know any of these people.

Sounds like you are just assuming it because you don't like the results of the study.
As I said: set up your own double blind study using the same methods and setup of those other studies and you hand pick all the people you think are "praying correctly" and see if the results differ.

I'll bet all my money that the results will be the same.

No, I'm just saying (and certainly viewing it in the Christian viewpoint) that not all prayers are good prayer as stipulated by Jesus. So, if three instances I gave are correct, just because someone is praying doesn't translate into an effectual prayer.

There are many types of prayer, a prayer of consecration, a prayer of intercession, a declarative prayer, a prayer of petition, a prayer of thanksgiving etc.

We know that you have certain antibiotics for certain illnesses. A wrong medicine won't produce the same results as a correct one.

So... what types of prayers did they use? Did they even know how to pray? Could me paying a drunk in the street and saying i will pay you $20 if you pray for me right now produce the same results as going to a believer? Of course not.

doesn't jive because you again don't like the obvious conclusion.
That conclusion being that Lego and Ikea succeed in being clear in their instructions while your all-powerfull deity apparantly can not.

So, building a lego set is the same as being a doctor? Your analogy really isn't a good one.

Cancer treatment demonstrably works.
You are making zero sense.

Relative survival rates for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Almost 90% of lung cancers are this type. The National Cancer Institute’s database breaks down the cancers by how far the tumors have spread. These relative survival rates are the average percentages of people who are alive 5 years after diagnosis. They don’t include people who died of something other than lung cancer.

• Localized (cancer is confined to one lung): 60%
• Regional (cancer has spread outside the lung or to lymph nodes): 33%
• Distant (cancer has moved farther, such as to the brain, the other lung, and bones): 6%
• All stages: 23%

Lung Cancer Survival Rates & Stages

My point is simply this. Just because it isn't 100% effective, we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Prayer may not be 100% in its results... but we do get results.

You make zero sense.
Medical science demonstrably works as double blind experiments clearly show.
Praying demonstrably doesn't work as double blind experiments clearly show.

You're obviously in denial.

\


loL... hardly.

In our church alone.

1. Emily - Stage 4 cancer - months to live... that was years ago - they couldn't find the cancer
2. Lissette - Inoperable brain tumor - less that a year to live - tumor gone after prayer
3. Austin - degenerative bone disease - eventual life in a wheel chair - now in the the army with no bone disease - no treatment

and the list can go on.

So, I wouldn't agree as would millions of others.

PS - Forgive me if before i came across as insensitive. Not my desire.