In what way do I treat evolution as a fact? How do I treat evolution any differently than the way you treat well supported scientific theories you already accept (e.g. The Germ Theory of Disease, Theory of Relativity)?
2 Likes
You consider it to be wht happened. No question or doubt.
You do not, and that is the whole point!
You see no difference. You see no doubt. You see no contradiction to the scientific method or understanding of âtruthâ
And you criticise me for not doing the same.
You just cannot see any difference between ToE and any other (scientific) theory or fact. You cannot see how ToE bypasses the scientific method to reach its conclusions. And you get all defensive, even aggressive at me for daring to criticise ToE and take it as a criticism of all of science (which I do not do)
You cannot see the subjectivity in ToE. Or the backwards way it works by starting with the conclusion and theorising how to reach that conclusion.
I admit I am biased. Do you? (admit that you are biased)
Richard
Thereâs a small amount of doubt that I would reserve for any scientific theory. However, when you have mountains and mountains of data that are consistent with a theory you tend to accept it as probably being true. That applies to all of science.
How do you know this? Are you a mind reader?
Then help me see it. How is it different?
How does the ToE bypass the scientific method?
What is a scientific hypothesis? How does it work?
I am biased towards the objective evidence.
2 Likes
That would be because the difference between ToE and other science that you see is âpurly based on my understanding of Godâ, and that understanding is based on âfactsâ you have personally experienced, and refuse to even describe let alone provide evidence for.
If no-one ever sees your supposed difference - or the supposed bypassing of the scientific method or subjectivity - thatâs your fault, and you should stop blaming people for not seeing something you refuse to show them.
1 Like
Iâm biased against blatherskites.
No one is claiming we can observe common ancestry between humans and other apes. Instead, what we are saying is that what we can observe (e.g. genomes, fossils) is consistent with humans and other apes sharing common ancestry. This is how science works. You determine what consequences your theory would have if it is true (i.e. a hypothesis), and then see if observations of reality match what your theory predicts (i.e. the experiment).
2 Likes
Just to help illustrate how science works . . .
Rutherfordâs Gold Foil Experiment is a classic example of science in action.
First, a bit of setup. Rutherford found that if he fired what he thought were positively charged particles at a screen coated with zinc sulfide he would see a visible flash of light. We call that scintillation in modern parlance. So was Rutherford observing charged particles? No, he was observing flashes of light. However, through careful scientific work he was able to support his conclusion that the flashes of light were caused by positively charge particles released by radioactive elements.
Rutherford decided to apply this scientific finding to a different question. How was the positive charge distributed in matter? To answer this question, he shot positively charge particles at some gold foil and then used his method of particle detection to see how the particles deflected when they encountered the gold foil. He found that some of the particles were strongly deflected, sometimes at angles greater than 90 degrees. In Rutherfordâs words, âIt was quite the most incredible event that has ever happened to me in my life. It was almost as incredible as if you fired a 15-inch shell at a piece of tissue paper and it came back and hit you.â
This scientific work led to the conclusion that the positive charge in matter was concentrated in a small area, what we call the atomic nucleus today, and that the atom was mostly empty space. However, did Rutherford ever observe these particles hitting atomic nuclei. NO!!! All Rutherford ever observed was flashes of light.
So did Rutherford âbypass the scientific methodâ? Absolutely not. Rutherford used what he could observe (flashes of light) to understand what he could not directly observe. This work gave rise to the theory of the atom we have today.
3 Likes
Nearly a s good as my claim that you cannot see ToE working.thousands of years ago.
Evidence and proof can be a bummer.
Especially if you rely on specific type of proof.
If you wish to mock my faith, go right ahead, but donât expect it to change my view or my faith, or to drive me away from this Forum.
You have assumed the position of protecting this Forum against me
So you not only claim superiority over me, you have made it your mission to discredit me.
Just to get things straight
Richard
Just like Rutherford could not see particles bouncing off of atomic nuclei, and yet he was still able to use the scientific method to reach that conclusion.
We have the evidence.
2 Likes
That is called blinding with science. It is waffle unecessarily so. And is full of its own importance. There is no âcriticismâ and a justification that there is no other theory. Brilliant.
It is not a balanced argument it is indoctrination.
âlook what we knowâ!
If that is your proof then think again.
Richard
Your inability to address any of the evidence is noted.
If you want to focus on just one topic, we could look at endogenous retroviruses:
The article is a bit out of date (e.g. the number of endogenous retroviruses in the human genome), but the basics are correct.
2 Likes
You canât note what doesnât exist.
I am not going to read through any more of that tripe.
I do not want to focus on one topic, That is you modus operandi. Always the example that proves nothing. You just cannot explain without an example. Why concentrate on one of the few flightless birds? they are fooling no one but themselves (and you apparently)
Do you actually understand the principles of ToE?
I am still waiting for your description of the evolutionary process, in your own words!
Richard
âGiven the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 Ă 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14).â
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.96.18.10254
2 Likes
Um, what? ToE doesnât care about morality or about the Bible or about Genesis 1 - 11, or about how any of these relates to another. FOr that matter, ToE isnât âDarwinian Evolutionâ, plus it isnât an âismâ â the latter is just projection, thinking that ToE must be a belief system with a prophet or something.
ToE makes no claims about God or about morality â they arenât subjects that science studies.
Why do you keep bringing up things no one here has suggested? If you want people to discuss that, make a separate topic.
Now thatâs a fairy tale â youâre basically saying that itâs just sort of magic that suddenly some people donât believe.
Unbelief has causes. The primary cause these days is that YEC preachers teach people that if there is any flaw in Genesis then the entire Bible is trash â and they proceed to define âflawâ using a definition drawn from scientific materialism, with the predictable result that when it becomes clear that if you read Genesis as teaching science then it does have flaws, and so people do what the YEC preachers say to do: they conclude that the Bible is trash, and either reject the faith or leave it (depending on where they started).
In short, YEC is handing people a reason to reject Christ, not teaching people to trust Him! YEC has the foundation wrong, and when people see that the YEC foundation fails, they abandon Christ as well.
You mean âaccording to YECâ: thatâs the entire YEC enterprise, trying to convince people that the Bible is scientifically correct.
So again, where does the Bible say it intends to be scientifically correct?
Amen.
Right there is the strongest condemnation of YEC that can be made: it puts YEC as the foundation â not the church, not the scripture, not even Christ, but a certain notion about the scriptures, in fact not about the scriptures but about a particular portion of the scriptures.
Christ is the center; that is the truth of Christian theology. You complain about my theology (but never address it), but you just confessed that your own theology is not Christian because Christian theology clings to Christ regardless of any other passage in the Bible.
In a genre not even known to Christ â nor to the modern West.
Iâll point this out again: the only way that âthe Genre argumentâ can fail is if the Genesis accounts have no genre, but that is impossible; all human literature has a genre, and without knowing the genre you canât have any idea what the piece of literature means.
Cross-referencing is not context.
The first book on my Nook is a science fiction book. Does that make all the books on my Nook science fiction?
You love to talk about the Bible but you donât even have the respect for it to know what it is! It is not a set of newspaper articles, it is a library of a variety of books some of which are themselves collections of different books.
Until you bother to learn what the Bible is, you will continue to talk nonsense.
3 Likes
So?
You canât see plate tectonics working millions of years ago during the break up of Gondwanaland.
You canât see planetary evolution working millions of years ago during the formation of Saturnâs rings.
Biological evolution is no different from plate tectonics or planetary evolution in this regard.
This is obvious to almost everyone.
1 Like
And has nothing to do with it, but that has gone over your head as well as several others on this forum.
I have no problem with Geology, Cosmology, or any other branch of Science, even 90% of Biology. That fact would appear to confuse and perplex, let alone cause ridicule or derision. Ces la vie.
Richard
Then weâre back to this:
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I have shown you. You have not seen.
if you want that to be my fault, go right ahead.
Do you really think I care?
Richard
Richard, you are in no position to think that these scientists and scientific thinkers donât know science. It is quite clear that the deficit in understanding science here is yours, not theirs.
You can and have accused them of not understanding you, but when you further resort to the ad hominem of pretending they donât know their own science, but you do, please refrain from repeating what youâve been unable to back up.
4 Likes
That is enough! I am not under your authority. And you cannot judge me! I wonât be talked down to!
I ask for a simple description of the evolutionary process
and get silence.
That is all I have asked for.
You canât do quadratic equattions without basic maths. You can join whatever dots you like or claim whatever ancstry you like but if there is no .mechanism to accomplish it the theory falls at the first hurdle.
Richard