The battle over Evolution (continued)

[rabinovich]

To my knowledge people who believe in creationism don't say creatures created themselves, but there was a God or some supernatural entity or force which triggered their creation. Evolution is a belief system. Intelligent design is a belief system. I do not claim to know. I only claim to believe. Evolutionists don't like to believe, they like to claim they know things, when in reality all they are expressing is a belief, a guess - as that is what a theory is.

OK, I say the Christmas presents were brought by mom and dad and hidden under the tree (or wherever your tradition places them), and someone else says "no, Santa Claus brought them". The difference is about the same, as in the case of evolutionary theory and so-called "creatonism". One is a scientifically verified (though indirectly, but in many ways) field of study, the other is a fairy tale tracing back to stone age stories which personified the forces of nature.

[Anonymouse]

OK, I say the Christmas presents were brought by mom and dad and hidden under the tree (or wherever your tradition places them), and someone else says "no, Santa Claus brought them". The difference is about the same, as in the case of evolutionary theory and so-called "creatonism". One is a scientifically verified (though indirectly, but in many ways) field of study, the other is a fairy tale tracing back to stone age stories which personified the forces of nature.

Your bias is evident in that you do not want to admit that evolution is a belief. That's okay. It is not a scientific law. It is a distortion of the scientific method. You state evolution is "scientifically verified". Although the term is a nice term with an aura of science, it nonetheless false short. How is it scientifically verified? The scientific method begins with an observation. Evolution begins with an a priori assumption, not observation. It's observation is inferred from the theory.

[rabinovich]

If you read the thread I mentioned how science itself has changed, i.e. in its descriptive models about reality such as from Newtonian physics to modern physics. Of course you are going into a whole metaphysical debate which deserves a thread on its own, i.e. the sociology of knowledge, and faith in that knowledge. Evidence for dinosaurs or Julias Ceaser or fossils is not the same as going beyond the evidence and postulating a pattern of development which is a theory, a guess. As such one is expressing a belief. The scientific method is about observation and reproducibility. Evolution is neither observed nor is it reproducible or verifiable in any empirical way.

I strongly disagree. Evolution IS verifiable in empirical way - the results predicted by evolution theory, be those biochemical, biological, or whatever, can directly be observed on fossils and alive creatures. I am more than sure that it has been indirectly verified a million times by biologists, biochemists, etc.

Similarly, many physical particles are only indirectly verified. No one questions their existence though, and people even make use of those particles and perform experiments...

By the way, Julius Ceasar exists only in our minds, there is no physical remains. He is not reproducible, neither his campaigns to Gaul. But Historians deal these stories as facts. I think evolution deserves at least as much credibility as Julius Ceasar.

No one is denying science, when it behaves like science within the realms of science and what is scientifically acceptable. Evolution goes beyond science. That many scientists find it credible is again a reflection on their willingness to believe. That evolution is not observable nor reproducible is telling. We have fossil A, and then we have fossil B. There is no way of knowing what happened between fossil A and B aside from conjectures. We never observed it, nor can we reproduce anything of that nature.

OK, that way how do we say there's electromagnetic force, or electromagnetic waves? There's a transmitter A here, there's a receiver B there, and somehow they show similar oscillations. So what? God almighty oscillates them at same frequency.

[rabinovich]

Your bias is evident in that you do not want to admit that evolution is a belief. That's okay. It is not a scientific law. It is a distortion of the scientific method. You state evolution is "scientifically verified". Although the term is a nice term with an aura of science, it nonetheless false short. How is it scientifically verified? The scientific method begins with an observation. Evolution begins with an a priori assumption, not observation. It's observation is inferred from the theory.

Anonymouse read my previous posts, I told already many times what I mean by verified. Verified indirectly, just as many other things in science. Humans are not omnipotent creatures to verify every hypothesis they want. That's why people have tools, both theoretical and physical, to extend their horizons

[Anonymouse]

Anonymouse read my previous posts, I told already many times what I mean by verified. Verified indirectly, just as many other things in science. Humans are not omnipotent creatures to verify every hypothesis they want. That's why people have tools, both theoretical and physical, to extend their horizons

At least you aren't like some evolutionists who claim absolute fact and monopoly on this.

[ArmoBarbi]

At least you aren't like some evolutionists who claim absolute fact and monopoly on this.

Anyone who claims to know 100% is in trouble. I choose to BELIEVE the one I find more likely after counting in EVERYTHING I have learned in my life time. You choose to BELIEVE what you were taught to believe all during your life time. Thats the difference. I dont know of anyone in this thread who ever claimed that they know 100%, and dont see why you would even bring it up to us. An intelligent person keeps an open mind. Dont you think?

[Anonymouse]

Anyone who claims to know 100% is in trouble. I choose to BELIEVE the one I find more likely after counting in EVERYTHING I have learned in my life time. You choose to BELIEVE what you were taught to believe all during your life time. Thats the difference. I dont know of anyone in this thread who ever claimed that they know 100%, and dont see why you would even bring it up to us. An intelligent person keeps an open mind. Dont you think?

I understand what you are saying. However, winoman claimed evolution is fact, as in it is an undeniable law, not mere belief. And before you jump on me with accusations about me insulting, this is merely an observation from his own posts and thread. So by your own standards "anyone who claims to know 100% is in trouble". An "intelligent person keeps an open mind". I agree with all these.

[ArmoBarbi]

I understand what you are saying. However, winoman claimed evolution is fact, as in it is an undeniable law, not mere belief. And before you jump on me with accusations about me insulting, this is merely an observation from his own posts and thread. So by your own standards "anyone who claims to know 100% is in trouble". An "intelligent person keeps an open mind". I agree with all these.

K

I thought that wino simply meant that it is scientifically supported (Although that doesnt make it a fact... It would need to be proven to be considered fact.)

[winoman]

Evolution is state of the art science - any attemtp to portray it otherwise is false

Theory of Evolution is an accepted Scientific theory as valid as any other (or more so because of the scrutiny it has withstood). To (attempt to) slander Evolution (versus use proper science to perhaps dispute - and BTW there are no opposing Scientific theries of merit that any serious scientist even remotely accepts) - well then the argument is not concerning the validity of Evolution but of Science and scientific method itself. (and I have clearly shown this to be true in various past posts)

Astronomy, physics and other Sciences (other theories and accepted laws etc) can all likewise be questioned. And all who understand and believe that science is the best at explaining/describing as much as we can really know about the universe at any particular point in time - realise that new discoveries, techniques, new knowledge always has the ability to change our perspective and advance our knowledge/understanding - sometimes even smashing current beliefs - this is understood. No one who advocates that Evolution is fact (as best we can know) would ever say it is absolute truth or that there is no chance that our knowledge might grow to tell us differently. But as is - it is the best we can know - and it is accepted as the basis of our undertanding of biology as we know it as a science. The various critiques of Evolution are thus politically (and religiously) motivated - much as Anymouses claims. He is creating strawman arguments and attempting to falsely portray what we are presenting here. He clearly has no real legs to stand on.

Furthmore - If one disputes a hypothis (that has been accepted as a Scinetific theory and that a great deal of additional science is based upon etc) then one must offer a counter hypothesis. If the tenents of evolution are untrue - what then is the mechanism for life as we see it on Earth and what is the mechanism that explains the fossil record and its apparent advancement of complexity over time? etc etc etc I have asked for this hypothosis before (and for something to back it up - other then "this is what I bleieve - you believe Evolution and I believe in Santa Claus - each belief is just as valid" etc tec - becuase this is no argument whatsoever).

BTW - we laugh at you.

[Anonymouse]

Theory of Evolution is an accepted Scientific theory as valid as any other (or more so because of the scrutiny it has withstood). To (attempt to) slander Evolution (versus use proper science to perhaps dispute - and BTW there are no opposing Scientific theries of merit that any serious scientist even remotely accepts) - well then the argument is not concerning the validity of Evolution but of Science and scientific method itself. (and I have clearly shown this to be true in various past posts)

Astronomy, physics and other Sciences (other theories and accepted laws etc) can all likewise be questioned. And all who understand and believe that science is the best at explaining/describing as much as we can really know about the universe at any particular point in time - realise that new discoveries, techniques, new knowledge always has the ability to change our perspective and advance our knowledge/understanding - sometimes even smashing current beliefs - this is understood. No one who advocates that Evolution is fact (as best we can know) would ever say it is absolute truth or that there is no chance that our knowledge might grow to tell us differently. But as is - it is the best we can know - and it is accepted as the basis of our undertanding of biology as we know it as a science. The various critiques of Evolution are thus politically (and religiously) motivated - much as Anymouses claims. He is creating strawman arguments and attempting to falsely portray what we are presenting here. He clearly has no real legs to stand on.

Furthmore - If one disputes a hypothis (that has been accepted as a Scinetific theory and that a great deal of additional science is based upon etc) then one must offer a counter hypothesis. If the tenents of evolution are untrue - what then is the mechanism for life as we see it on Earth and what is the mechanism that explains the fossil record and its apparent advancement of complexity over time? etc etc etc I have asked for this hypothosis before (and for something to back it up - other then "this is what I bleieve - you believe Evolution and I believe in Santa Claus - each belief is just as valid" etc tec - becuase this is no argument whatsoever).

BTW - we laugh at you.

So now you back away from your earlier claim that evolution is fact?