RE: "Where is your evidence?" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

TonyBell -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/3/2007 11:32:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL: TonyBell
quote:

There are thousands upon thousands of books, journals and articles describing in detail the evidence of evolution from decades of expirmentation, reasearch and other scientific studies. Feel free to read them.

Please present some of that evidence so we can examine it. I say whatever you present will fail to be real evidence for evolution. It will fall under one of the following:
1 - bait and switch con game
2 - “musical” definitions (evidence of simple “change over time” is not evidence that a reptile can become a mammal)
3 – overzealous misinterpretation of the evidence
4 - fraud


If you have your mind already made up then what's the point?



unclemonkey -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/3/2007 11:42:11 AM)

ORIGINAL: TonyBell
quote:

If you have your mind already made up then what's the point?

IOW, everything you can find to present does fit one of those categories so rather than admiting the truth you will just accuse me of being narrow-minded.



unclemonkey -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/3/2007 11:54:35 AM)

ORIGINAL: Method
quote:

A common creator could do anything it wants. Therefore, no evidence can be put forth for a common creator. You can only claim evidence once you can differentiate between what one should and should not see if your claims are true.

What I did is point out that a common ancestor is NOT the only possible explanation. To be evidence for common descent a common ancestor must be the only possible explanation.

quote:

ERV's falling into a nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution because this is the pattern that evolution predicts.

Please read my cite. That statement was addressed and refuted. Continuing to forward a refuted claim would fall under the category of fraud.



themostlysilentone -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/4/2007 1:13:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

I started this thread to answer a statement made in a thread it didn’t fit.
ORIGINAL:BVZ
quote:

When critical thinking questioning mindless evolution is introduces, we ask : "Where is your evidence?"

That is the critical thinking that is banned from public schools. When anyone tries to point out that the supposed evidence for evolution presented in the public schools consists of bait and switch con games and “musical” definitions they are taken to court and banned.


Critical thinking does not equal science.

Critical thinking BASED ON EVIDENCE does equal science.

If they banned critical thinking I see not problem, as long as the critical thinking that was banned was NOT based on evidence. And it wasn't. Which implies it was not science.

As far as I know, all that happened was that non-science was removed from science classes. Were you seriously expecting them to teach NON-SCIENCE in SCIENCE classes? That would be dumb would it not?

I have a question, in case I am not understanding something. I thought that science was based on observation? Finding evidence of something that happened (if anything actually did happen) is not observing something happening. If it is not observing an event that occured but requires someone with a bias to infer an event or anything else for that matter, is that science? (It isn't critical thinking where biases are concerned, correct?).

Is there anything in the "science" of evolution that is not based on inference and interpretation? (Note: in response to experimentation, when conducting an experiment, an intelligence is involved and this does not exactly support the idea of no guiding intelligence. Just because a scientist can cause something to occur in the laboratory, does not mean that it ever occured outside the laboratory. Likewise, just because a scientist shows that something is possible, does not mean that it happened. Would science and scientist worship be considered a religion? Sometimes it seems like an evolutionist would be willing to fight for his "belief", or censor; persecute anyone who who would dare not to accept it (like the Catholic church of old...hmmmm).

In the world of observation, one can observe the world and the universe and see a logical "design" to the whole thing. Everything works together with nothing out of place, everything fitting together logically. There exists events that can be observed that show how such logical design occurs. It is called manufacturing. In every case of manufacturing, there is an intelligence directly involved in one place or another. Someone built and programmed the robots that build other robots, build cars, build computers, etc. If one starts from the smallest example one can think of, and build their way up to larger scales, there is always a guiding intelligence involved in one way or another. Do you have any evidence that shows that there is logical design that has absolutely no guiding intelligence involved at anytime?



essentialsaltes -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/4/2007 12:37:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: themostlysilentone

I have a question, in case I am not understanding something. I thought that science was based on observation? Finding evidence of something that happened (if anything actually did happen) is not observing something happening. If it is not observing an event that occured but requires someone with a bias to infer an event or anything else for that matter, is that science? (It isn't critical thinking where biases are concerned, correct?).



Basic observations are the facts of science. In order to explain why the facts are as they are, scientists develop theories that explain these facts. The theory that best explains the known facts is accepted provisionally as the current scientific explanation.

Virtually any observation one makes requires some level of inference. Can tree rings tell us how old a tree is? No one observed each one forming. Do magnetic fields 'really' exist, or are they merely convenient computational fictions that give us the right answer? Is an iridium-rich stratum of rock evidence of a large asteroid impact, or is it just a remarkable coincidence?

Science is the practice of testing alternative explanations of the facts. Inference and interpretation may be unavoidable in science, but as much as practicable, these are explored by further experimentation to remove ambiguities and to test the predictive power of proposed or accepted theories.



themostlysilentone -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/4/2007 10:36:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

Basic observations are the facts of science. In order to explain why the facts are as they are, scientists develop theories that explain these facts. The theory that best explains the known facts is accepted provisionally as the current scientific explanation.

Virtually any observation one makes requires some level of inference. Can tree rings tell us how old a tree is? No one observed each one forming. Do magnetic fields 'really' exist, or are they merely convenient computational fictions that give us the right answer? Is an iridium-rich stratum of rock evidence of a large asteroid impact, or is it just a remarkable coincidence?



Why should observation require inference? You are watching it happen right in front of you. That is what science is, observing something that is happening. Inference without any observation to back it up is worthless. Many of sciences laws are based on observation. One can observe the effects of gravity. With enough observation, one could infer how things will react in the presence of gravity. One may still be wrong, but, with observation, there is a better chance that one will be correct. If one interprets evidence that one has not observed, and could not observe if for instance it supposedly occured millions of years ago, how can that be considered science? How can one look at a so called finished product, and then infer how it came to be, if it has never been observed? What one calls the pieces of a puzzle (fossils showing one creature becoming another for instance (if there really are any)) could in fact have nothing to do with each other. How can one know without observation, or the picture from the puzzle box? (When's the last time they found a fossil buried with a polaroid or 8mm film of its last vacation?)

Science is the practice of testing alternative explanations of the facts. Inference and interpretation may be unavoidable in science, but as much as practicable, these are explored by further experimentation to remove ambiguities and to test the predictive power of proposed or accepted theories.



ianz -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/4/2007 11:04:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: themostlysilentone

I have a question, in case I am not understanding something. I thought that science was based on observation? Finding evidence of something that happened (if anything actually did happen) is not observing something happening. If it is not observing an event that occured but requires someone with a bias to infer an event or anything else for that matter, is that science? (It isn't critical thinking where biases are concerned, correct?).



Basic observations are the facts of science. In order to explain why the facts are as they are, scientists develop theories that explain these facts. The theory that best explains the known facts is accepted provisionally as the current scientific explanation.

Virtually any observation one makes requires some level of inference. Can tree rings tell us how old a tree is? No one observed each one forming. Do magnetic fields 'really' exist, or are they merely convenient computational fictions that give us the right answer? Is an iridium-rich stratum of rock evidence of a large asteroid impact, or is it just a remarkable coincidence?

Science is the practice of testing alternative explanations of the facts. Inference and interpretation may be unavoidable in science, but as much as practicable, these are explored by further experimentation to remove ambiguities and to test the predictive power of proposed or accepted theories.

You're basically right. That's why theories are called theories, and not facts. Theory = a quite likely explanation for something. The more solid the evidence, the more solid the theory. So things like rings on trees explaining their age - no, no-one has observed this, but it's extremely likely that there is a direct correlation between the number of rings on a tree and its age in years.

Nothing is certain, but some things are more certain than others.

Regards, Ian



essentialsaltes -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/4/2007 11:54:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: themostlysilentone

Why should observation require inference? You are watching it happen right in front of you.


Consider my example of the tree rings. You are not watching it happen right in front of you.



BVZ -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/5/2007 12:24:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:BVZ
quote:

Chimps and humans share 200000 ERV's. THIS ALONE IS ENOUGH TO PROVE COMMON DESCENT.

No, that alone is enough to prove a common creator. Do you think shouting a mantra makes it true?
You interpret the evidence to fit you’re a priori assumptions and I will interpret it to fit mine. ERV’s no more prove a common ancestor of ape and man than five digits on our hands and feet prove a common ancestor of frogs and man.


The ERV are found in a certain pattern. This pattern supports the theory of common descent. It's really that simple.

quote:


quote:

Your response to this? Some ERV's have been coopted in such a way that they have a function in the Human genome. Okay. So what? Explain to me (in detail please) how this changes anything?

If you will read the cite I provided it does that.


Yes. The link IS your response. Hence your response is : Some ERV's have been coopted in such a way that they have a function in the Human genome.

My question: Given that ERVs are functional in the Human genome, how does that change the fact that ERV's are evidence for evolution?

quote:


quote:

Were you seriously expecting them to teach NON-SCIENCE in SCIENCE classes? That would be dumb would it not?

I agree that teaching “NON-SCIENCE in SCIENCE classes" is a bad thing. That is exactly why I want to see Darwinian common descent removed from the curriculum.


Sounds interesting. But please go on. You have not reached the part yet where you support your claim.



BVZ -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/5/2007 12:29:19 AM)

Also, whoever wrote the article does not know what they are talking about.

For example, this:

quote:


The suggestion that the hypothesis of common ancestry would be falsified by the discovery of the same ERV at the same locus in two species that are not believed to have shared a recent common ancestor is incorrect. ERVs simply would join the list of alleged markers for evolution that exhibit homoplasy. And given what is known of retrovirus selectivity, I doubt anyone would be surprised.


From here:
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1e.asp
(right at the bottom).

This is so stupid, I can hardly believe what I am reading. Is the author SERIOUSLY claiming that ERV in the same location in different species, can be ascribed to CONVERGENT EVOLUTION?

Because if the author IS claiming this, it should be enough to show that he/she knows absolutely nothing about the topic, and hence, cannot be relied on to give an accurate view.



unclemonkey -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/5/2007 7:17:56 AM)

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:

The theory that best explains the known facts is accepted provisionally as the current scientific explanation.

Actually the accepted theory is the one that best fits the currently accepted paradigm. Paradigms are based primarily on worldview.



unclemonkey -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/5/2007 7:24:41 AM)

ORIGINAL: BVZ
quote:

This is so stupid, I can hardly believe what I am reading. Is the author SERIOUSLY claiming that ERV in the same location in different species, can be ascribed to CONVERGENT EVOLUTION?

It sounds stupid because the TOE is stupid. Humans and frogs both have five digits on the hands/feet. According to the TOE, is that because of “common descent” or is it “convergent evolution”?



Aristocrat -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/5/2007 9:11:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL: BVZ
quote:

This is so stupid, I can hardly believe what I am reading. Is the author SERIOUSLY claiming that ERV in the same location in different species, can be ascribed to CONVERGENT EVOLUTION?

It sounds stupid because the TOE is stupid. Humans and frogs both have five digits on the hands/feet. According to the TOE, is that because of “common descent” or is it “convergent evolution”?
Convergent evolution is relative to common descent.



Method -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/5/2007 12:30:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
What I did is point out that a common ancestor is NOT the only possible explanation. To be evidence for common descent a common ancestor must be the only possible explanation.


True or False. ERV's falling into a nested hierarchy is what one would expect if common ancestry is real.

It's also possible that the Universe was created last Thursday, complete with false memories. There are tons of possibilities if you want to sink to the level of post-modernism. However, given the OBSERVED mechanisms of retrovirus insertion, observed mechanisms of inheritance, and observed mechanisms of speciation there is only one sane explanation for all of these orthologous ERV's: common ancestry.

quote:

Please read my cite. That statement was addressed and refuted. Continuing to forward a refuted claim would fall under the category of fraud.


Where did your source refute the fact that evolution predicts a nested hierarchy and this is the exact pattern that is observed.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/6/2007 1:43:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method

True or False. ERV's falling into a nested hierarchy is what one would expect if common ancestry is real.

It's also possible that the Universe was created last Thursday, complete with false memories. There are tons of possibilities if you want to sink to the level of post-modernism. However, given the OBSERVED mechanisms of retrovirus insertion, observed mechanisms of inheritance, and observed mechanisms of speciation there is only one sane explanation for all of these orthologous ERV's: common ancestry.
...
Where did your source refute the fact that evolution predicts a nested hierarchy and this is the exact pattern that is observed.


So, the best evidence for UCD that you can come up with is some arbitrary nested hierarchy that there is no reason for evolution to predict in the first place?



Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/6/2007 1:52:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method
It's also possible that the Universe was created last Thursday, complete with false memories. There are tons of possibilities if you want to sink to the level of post-modernism. However, given the OBSERVED mechanisms of retrovirus insertion, observed mechanisms of inheritance, and observed mechanisms of speciation there is only one sane explanation for all of these orthologous ERV's: common ancestry.


No, the observed mechanisms of inheritance does not produce any such hierarchy. It's possible for someone with blue eyes to have a brother with brown eyes and a cousin with blue eyes and even to have the genes coding for eye color be more similar between the cousins than the brothers, a violation of this arbitrary nested hierarchy. No one ever observed inheritance forming any sort of nested hierarchy, it is merely speculated that the accumulation of traits will somehow form some arbitrary hierarchy. However, no one has ever observed such trait accumulation, if anything, we observed the accumulated loss of traits. For example, pure bred dogs have less diversity than their ancestors and they tend to have more health problems. Viruses that are passed through petri dishes eventually lose their ability to survive in the host organisms, their ancestors being able to survive both in the host organism and the petri dish. They lose diversity and become more uniform, we observe the accumulated loss of genetic diversity / traits, we never observe the accumulation of traits to form any sort of nested hierarchy. There is no reason UCD should predict any form of nested hierarchy, it predicts absolutely nothing and merely accommodates any combination of evidence that can possibly exist. The only thing keeping UCD and other naturalistic philosophies alive are tax dollars, if it weren't for tax dollars they couldn't survive.



Veritas -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/6/2007 7:03:08 AM)

Individuals within a species do not form a nested hierarchy. Species form a nested hierarchy. In order to form the predicted nested hierarchy, there needs to be reproductive isolation. In your examples of nested hierarchy violation, you've used people with different traits. Since humans form a species where traits can be freely exchanged, evolution does not predict a nested hierarchy. Evolution predicts a nested hierarchy where there is reproductive isolation.

Evolution does not predict that individuals within a species form a nested hierarchy. As you've noted, we do not observe a nested hierarchy where evolution does not predict one. Evolution predicts species would from a nested hierarchy. We observe that species form a nested hierarchy.

Straw man predictions refuted. Actual predictions confirmed.



Aristocrat -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/6/2007 9:53:08 AM)

May I ask why, when we talk about Common Descent, some of us must add the term Universal? Are there different types of Common Descent I'm not aware of?



unclemonkey -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/6/2007 10:10:11 AM)

ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
quote:

Are there different types of Common Descent I'm not aware of?

I am not one that has been doing that, but I would guess that it is a precautionary measure because evolutionists are so adept at using ‘slippery definitions’ to justify sloppy science.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/6/2007 10:33:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas
Individuals within a species do not form a nested hierarchy. Species form a nested hierarchy. In order to form the predicted nested hierarchy, there needs to be reproductive isolation. In your examples of nested hierarchy violation, you've used people with different traits.


Again, this is never observed, it is merely speculated. If we never observe the formation of any nested hierarchy among individuals, there is no reason to suspect that evolution will produce any form of (arbitrary) nested hierarchy to begin with. Besides, even when we do observe speciation, we never observe it forming any sort of nested hierarchy. Modern pure bred dogs that don't breed with their non - pure bred ancestors don't form any sort of nested hierarchy, we never observe the accumulation of traits that forms any sort of nested hierarchy. As I pointed out, we only see the accumulated loss of traits, the modern pure bred dogs tend to have more health problems and less diversity than their non - pure bred ancestors

So basically, the only alleged evidence you can come up with is some arbitrary nested hierarchy that doesn't even stand up to scrutiny. Do you actually expect me to believe in an alleged piece of evidence that censors all criticisms and opposing views from students in public schools (like the criticisms and opposing views we show on this board) because if it didn't it would destroy naturalism? When your alleged evidence can actually stand up to scrutiny and opposing views (ie: not censor it from students) then we'll talk. Until then, I see no reason to believe something so ridiculous that it can't even stand up to scrutiny (and it stands entirely on tax dollars). Why should I believe something that is so unscientific it must resort to tax funded brainwashing to propagate itself?

quote:


Evolution predicts species would from a nested hierarchy.


Again, there is no reason why evolution would predict this.

quote:


We observe that species form a nested hierarchy.


No we don't, we create some arbitrary nested hierarchy and then allege this is what evolution would predict. We never observe speciation accumulating traits to form any sort of nested hierarchy, when we do observe speciation, the resulting species are less diverse (have fewer traits) than their ancestors (they are less adaptive).



Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/6/2007 11:02:15 AM)

Does anyone have evidence for UCD that actually stands up to scrutiny? By that, I mean something that isn't so silly that it resorts to censoring the strongest non strawman opposing views and criticisms from students in public schools. Until someone can actually show me evidence that can tolerate criticism, I see no reason to believe something that is so unreasonable that it can't even stand up to scrutiny (and that stands entirely on tax dollars).

In my philosophy and ethics class, I learned multiple opposing views including hedonism, rule utility, act utility, Kantism, altruism, among others. I learned the pros and cons of each. Most philosophers would disagree with hedonism yet they are still willing to expose the pros and cons of it, despite the fact that it may oppose their views. It makes perfect sense, if they want to expose one side of an issue, they should expose criticisms and opposing views as well. This allows students to pick a side and see for themselves why their views may or may not stand up to scrutiny and opposing views. The problem with UCD and other naturalistic philosophies is that they can't stand up to criticism and opposing views. So committed naturalists demand to censor such scrutiny. Until someone can provide me with evidence that actually stands up to scrutiny, in opposed to censoring it from students and stealing tax dollars to propagate, I see no reason to believe UCD is true.



Jens71 -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/6/2007 1:24:26 PM)

No one can present any evidence of UCD you would believe.

BR

Jens



Aristocrat -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/6/2007 1:37:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

Does anyone have evidence for UCD that actually stands up to scrutiny? By that, I mean something that isn't so silly that it resorts to censoring the strongest non strawman opposing views and criticisms from students in public schools. Until someone can actually show me evidence that can tolerate criticism, I see no reason to believe something that is so unreasonable that it can't even stand up to scrutiny (and that stands entirely on tax dollars).

Until someone can provide me with evidence that actually stands up to scrutiny, in opposed to censoring it from students and stealing tax dollars to propagate, I see no reason to believe UCD is true.


Evidence of common descent are the shared genetics in all living organisms for example. Now if you can give me a better explanation for matching genes in all forms of life than they are from a common ancestor, please let us hear it. Until you do come up with a feasible alternative, your tax money will be well spent, I assure you.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/6/2007 5:09:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jens71
No one can present any evidence of UCD you would believe.


Not true, if you can show me molecule to man evolution through unguided natural processes (in the real world) then I would believe it's scientific. Speculating that it takes millions of years is not falsifiable and hence unscientific (and please, don't get evolution confused with human growth and development. They are not the same thing).



Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/6/2007 5:12:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
Evidence of common descent are the shared genetics in all living organisms for example. Now if you can give me a better explanation for matching genes in all forms of life than they are from a common ancestor, please let us hear it. Until you do come up with a feasible alternative, your tax money will be well spent, I assure you.


Commonalities exist among different cars, they are not evidence that various cars share a common ancestor. The fact that different organisms use DNA is not evidence that they share a common ancestor any more than the fact that various cars use tires is evidence that they share a common ancestor.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI