Will Torbald Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 It is true that the theory of evolution has not been proven – if, by that term, one means established beyond any further possibility of doubt or refutation. On the other hand, neither has atomic theory, the theory of relativity, quantum theory, or indeed any other theory in science. The reason for this is that science does not deal in absolute proof, only in the balance of the evidence. To see why this is and must be true, imagine that we are scientists seeking to explain some feature of the natural world. Based on the evidence available to us, we can construct a hypothesis – an educated guess – which we offer as that explanation. If more evidence turns up that supports our hypothesis, if our hypothesis is testable and falsifiable, and if our hypothesis can be used to make predictions which turn out to be correct – if all these things are true, then our hypothesis graduates to the status of a theory and, in time, becomes accepted scientific wisdom. But how do we really know the original hypothesis is true? What if it completely misses the mark, but gives the right answers just by coincidence? Or what if it is just an approximation, giving generally correct answers while failing to capture the true reality of what is going on? How can we ever be sure that these things are not the case? The answer is, of course, that we cannot know this. This is why no scientific theory, including evolution, is ever considered to be proven. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/has-evolution-been-proven All this says is that "You can't know anything" which dilutes into Epistemological Nihilism. If you say "Evolution hasn't been proven because you can't prove anything" you have not made any comment of value. It is simply to deny all empirical enterprise and crawl back into a burrow of rationalism. As far as science is concerned, evolution is a fact. It happens. Then, if you try to say "nothing is confirmed in science" you have not said anything against it.
RCali Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 If the scientific method doesn't prove something, then nothing does.
Guest Gee Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 There is a video on youtube where professor and Nobel laureate, Richard Feynman is asked "how do magnets work?", and his answer is "we (scientists) don't know". Actually, owning to the brilliance of one Lars Onsager, there exists exact solutions to two dimensional Ising models of ferromagnetic systems.
Pelafina Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 Actually, owning to the brilliance of one Lars Onsager, there exists exact solutions to two dimensional Ising models of ferromagnetic systems. A model doesn't explain the why, it is only a reiteration of what is being observed.
Torero Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 A model doesn't explain the why, it is only a reiteration of what is being observed. A model is a tool which is intended to help to explain the "how comes". "Why?" is a wrong question to ask in a natural-scientific discussion; "why" points to a reason, which is human, by definition. But if neither evolution nor creationism explains satisfactorily the dynamic diversity of life on this planet, then what does for you? And how come these little fellows look so much alike? http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/3922811/640/3922811.jpg
Pelafina Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 And how come these little fellows look so much alike? http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/3922811/640/3922811.jpg How come it looks like the sun goes around the earth? I guess it must be because the sun goes around the earth.
Torero Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 How come it looks like the sun goes around the earth? I guess it must be because the sun goes around the earth. I asked two questions: - how come there are so many similarities between life forms? - illustrated with a picture link - how come there's such a splurge biodiversity of life forms and if "creationism" AND "evolution theory" (or at least what you understand it means) are both not explaining that, what is? Your "answer" is a counterquestion which has no rational equivalence. Mankind is stuck to Earth and its atmosphere and will thus not be able to see beyond from Earth, so to an untrained eye the Sun might revolve around the Earth. But with some investigation this geocentric world view doesn't hold and that's why it's left for some 400+ years. If nor rational "evolution theory" nor irrational "creationism" does explain our biodiversity in present and past, then what can do that? If you're brave enough to challenge well-researched views, you'll have to present a rational contra-explanation. That is, if you want to be taken seriously...
Pelafina Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 To adapt you need random mutations. Why was the random mutation exactly what the bird needed? Calculate the probability of that coincidence.
Will Torbald Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 To adapt you need random mutations. Why was the random mutation exactly what the bird needed? Calculate the probability of that coincidence. Cool argument from incredulity.
Pelafina Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Cool argument from incredulity. Calling my argument incredulous is not an argument.
RCali Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Calling my argument incredulous is not an argument. Isn't that what you've been doing all along?
Pelafina Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Isn't that what you've been doing all along? Of course not. I've presented logic and reason to discredit your faith-based assertions for which no empirical evidence exists.
shirgall Posted November 6, 2015 Author Posted November 6, 2015 Of course not. I've presented logic and reason to discredit your faith-based assertions for which no empirical evidence exists. And I've presented evidence which you reject. You've presented no evidence that contradicts.
Pelafina Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 And I've presented evidence which you reject. You've presented no evidence that contradicts. Whoever makes an assertion that something is true, has the burden of proof. You have supplied no proof. If I made an assertion that god exists, you would ignore me if I didn't present logic, reason & evidence.
Will Torbald Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Whoever makes an assertion that something is true, has the burden of proof. You have supplied no proof. If I made an assertion that god exists, you would ignore me if I didn't present logic, reason & evidence. And when you deny something based on incredulity, you're just not using reason. The proof is in the literature. Since you wishfully remain ignorant, you can't make the case that the burden of proof hasn't been met. I am not going to educate you, that's something you have to do before denying the evidence.
RCali Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 You have supplied no proof. Isn't that what you've doing all along?
Pelafina Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 Isn't that what you've doing all along? Whoever makes an assertion that something is true, has the burden of proof. You have supplied no proof. A theory is not proof. If I made an assertion that god exists, you would ignore me if I didn't present logic, reason & evidence.
Torero Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Whoever makes an assertion that something is true, has the burden of proof. You have supplied no proof. A theory is not proof. If I made an assertion that god exists, you would ignore me if I didn't present logic, reason & evidence. - how come there are so many similarities between life forms? - how come there's such a splurge biodiversity of life forms and if "creationism" AND "evolution theory" (or at least what you understand it means) are both not explaining that, what is? If you're brave enough to challenge well-researched views, you'll have to present a rational contra-explanation. That is, if you want to be taken seriously.
Pelafina Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 - how come there are so many similarities between life forms? Correlation does not equal causation. - how come there's such a splurge biodiversity of life forms and if "creationism" AND "evolution theory" (or at least what you understand it means) are both not explaining that, what is? Lack of a solution, does not mean your faith-based guess is correct. Please learn the basics of the scientific method. Thanks.
Torero Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Pelafina's text in dark red, mine in black - how come there are so many similarities between life forms? Correlation does not equal causation. - how come there's such a splurge biodiversity of life forms and if "creationism" AND "evolution theory" (or at least what you understand it means) are both not explaining that, what is? Lack of a solution, does not mean your faith-based guess is correct. Please learn the basics of the scientific method. Thanks. "Correlation does not equal causation" is a cliché, it's not an argument; it's just a fact as that drinking 5 liters of alcohol a day does not equal a soon painful death. Yet the correlative effect is pretty easy to spot when looking at causes. But it's not an answer either. I asked you what cause there is for the biodiversity. So the "answer" including negating causation is senseless. After a few tries you: - fail to explain -in your own words, in your own "non-faith-based" trolling natural scientific well-argumented, well-outlined system or lack thereof- what causes both the similarities and differences between species, if it's nor evolution, nor creationism. "A third way" I've never seen presented anywhere. - part of science is that in order to attack a well-established theory, you need to present an alternative, and better (for it to win on scientific arguments) proposal. You have no intentions to do so, so how seriously you think people take you? - you fail to argument why you think science (in its core philosophy and empiricism) is based on "faith" None of those 68 downvotes is mine, but I quite understand where they come from.
Pelafina Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 part of science is that in order to attack a well-established theory, you need to present an alternative, and better (for it to win on scientific arguments) Incorrect. In order to attack a theory, all I need to do is to ask you for logic and evidence. I do not need to present any alternative whatsoever. You are the one putting forth your belief in a theory. Now you either prove it, or else it is known to all that you believe in the unproven religion of evolution.
Will Torbald Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Incorrect. In order to attack a theory, all I need to do is to ask you for logic and evidence. I do not need to present any alternative whatsoever. You are the one putting forth your belief in a theory. Now you either prove it, or else it is known to all that you believe in the unproven religion of evolution. Incorrect. Asking for logic and evidence is an admission of ignorance of the subject from your part. It is equal to saying "I don't know therefore it is not true". It is your job to educate yourself before attempting to discredit any scientific theory. It is your job to know as much as the person you are arguing with in order to make a credible case. As you are, you are nothing more than an ignorant troll unwilling to listen, nor learn anything.
Pelafina Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Incorrect. Asking for logic and evidence is an admission of ignorance of the subject from your part. It is equal to saying "I don't know therefore it is not true". It is your job to educate yourself before attempting to discredit any scientific theory. It is your job to know as much as the person you are arguing with in order to make a credible case. As you are, you are nothing more than an ignorant troll unwilling to listen, nor learn anything. Keep your faith. I'll take reason and evidence.
Pelafina Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Incorrect. Asking for logic and evidence is an admission of ignorance of the subject from your part. It is equal to saying "I don't know therefore it is not true". As you are, you are nothing more than an ignorant troll unwilling to listen, nor learn anything. Asking for logic and evidence means that you failed to provide logic and evidence because you are religious. Calling me an ignorant troll means you are using ad hominem attacks, which is not an argument. Epic fail.
Will Torbald Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Keep your faith. I'll take reason and evidence. Then go get it. I am not your evolutionary biology proffessor. Go take courses, read the books, watch the documentaries, visit the museums. Learn. Then come back.
Torero Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Will Torbald has said it all in very clear words, but I just wanted to add where and how it all went wrong with Pelafina, namely in "her" first post in this topic: You know you can't believe in the theory of evolution, because it is not scientifically proven. It is the best guess we have so far which explains what we see. But if you believe in it, then you are operating on faith, because it's a theory, not fact. In this post "she" shows she has no idea what kind/realm of 'thinking' and wording "she" is talking about and mixes them all up, wraps them like it is some kind of rational argument and spits it in the faces of thousands and thousands serious scientists and those who follow that as a hobby. Philosophical thinking & wording - very rational - brown - "know", "observe", "operate" Religious "thinking"/wording - irrational - red - "believe", "faith" Scientific thinking & wording - rational - green - "theory of evolution", "scientifically" Law thinking & wording - rational but limited - blue - "proven/proof", "fact" Chavvy amateur no interest in the subject showing "thinking"/wording - irrational, very emotional - pink - "it is the best guess we have" It is a common mistake seen in discussions about scientific subjects online. People asking for "proof" and "facts" are not talking scientific language. We have observations, measurements (data), experiments, tests, models, theories, hypotheses and interpretations of that. That forms a theory. So if you consider an observation factual (in law wording), then a theory is indeed not a fact. It is based on facts; the observations, measurements and all. If you don't dispute the "facts" (observations; the biodiversity of life, fossil evidence for evolutionary changes, polar bears and brown bears, dogs bred in the most extreme varieties showing "evolution" (at least the gene part of it) live in front of our supermarket eyes)), then it's your turn to present a valid, rational scientific theory on "Evolution theory is not the model for the diversity and origin of species, yet Pelafinism is". If you dispute the facts then you show why some facts cannot be trusted, start with the facts you do trust and build your hypothesis on that. That hypothesis you test with blind data, data not used before. If the data confirm your hypothesis, you have a theory. If not, back to the drawing board. The theory needs to be falsifiable and show predictability. If the theory of unicorns is that they do not exist as fauna in the real world and tomorrow one sits next to you in the bus, you have a problem. I am curious to hear Pelafina's never-heard-before-no-Evolution-nor-Creationism-but-100%-water-tight-in-explaining-our-origins-story.
st434u Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Conventional factory-farm chickens are one of the animals bred in the worst conditions. From unhealthy, unbalanced food, extremely confined spaces, to 24/7 artificial light, to antibiotics and drugs and artificial hormones and even toxic vaccines. I wonder the role that these terrible conditions played in the development of these mutations. I personally only eat organic, truly free range chicken, meaning the chickens are raised in the traditional style, where they get to walk around and pick up bugs. They're also not fed GMO corn and soy. They taste much better and the meat is much more firm.
Recommended Posts