How am I lying to myself? Please be specific. I noticed that you failed to address this part of my post:
" The theory of evolution predicts which combinations of features we should find in fossils if the theory is correct and which combinations of features we should not see. For example, the theory predicts that there was once species with a mixture of bird and dinosaur features, but no species with a mixture of bird and mammal features. This is called a scientific hypothesis. We then test this hypothesis by cataloguing the mixture of features in fossils and comparing them to the predictions made by the hypothesis. It turns out, the observations match the predictions. This is how science works."
Because it is not empiracle in the sense of viewing what happens. it is coroborative.
If you cannot understand what I mean, find someone who can show youâŚ
Fulfilling predictions just proves that you knew what you were looking for and found it. i can do that with Scripture if you like. it desnât make it right.
You donât observe the theory. I explained this in the third post of this thread. You are getting the basics wrong.
All of science works through corroborative evidence. If you reject this evidence for evolution, then you should reject all of science for the exact same reason.
Elliott Sober, (Philosophy, U of Wisconsin-Madison) has published a number interesting articles and books along the subject of evolution and science over his career in philosophy of science. Definitely worth checking out.
I donât dictate how science is done. The scientific method existed before I was ever born, and it continues the same today. You are just wrong. You donât observe the theory.
If you applied your criticisms of evolution fairly to all of science it would require you to reject all of science. What does that tell you about your criticisms of evolution as a science?
I am proposing no dichotomy. I am saying there is no difference between the theory of evolution and any other theory in science. YOU are the one creating a false dichotomy between evolution and the rest of science, even though the theory of evolution is a product of the scientific method in the very same way that all other scientific theories are a product of that very same method.
How am I wrong? How is this not a viable scientific hypothesis?
âThe theory of evolution predicts which combinations of features we should find in fossils if the theory is correct and which combinations of features we should not see. For example, the theory predicts that there was once species with a mixture of bird and dinosaur features, but no species with a mixture of bird and mammal features. This is called a scientific hypothesis. We then test this hypothesis by cataloguing the mixture of features in fossils and comparing them to the predictions made by the hypothesis. It turns out, the observations match the predictions. This is how science works.â
The most basic concept in the scientific method is that theory/hypothesis and data are two separate things. You donât observe the hypothesis or theory. You test the theory with observations. This is exactly what I have done with the mixture of features in fossils which are empirical observations.
Using your same logic, you would also reject the findings of forensic scientists because âthey are just seeing what they want to seeâ. Physicists are just seeing the orbits of planets follow the predictions of Einstein and Newtonâs equations because thatâs what physicists want to see. Your criticism applies to every single piece of science.
The only reason I canât explain it to you is because you either willfully or inately cannot understand it.
Some people canât play chess or do quadratic equations. You have a problem with some principles or concepts. Ces la vie.
No. The reason you canât explain it is because you are wrong.
For example, we can use Einsteinâs equations to accurately predict a precession in Mercuryâs orbit, and we observe that very precession. You, on the other had, would reject this as supporting the theory of relativity because physicists are just seeing what they want to see, and it could be caused by the supernatural. Your criticisms of the theory of evolution and the evidence that supports it apply to all of science, and in application they require the rejection of science itself.
So itâs exactly like how forensic scientists prove guilt in a court of law for a crime they never witnessed - which you said was âa false comparisonâ.
We understand exactly what you mean, we know why it doesnât work, and we know why you bale out every time youâre asked to explain it.