Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

[davewhite04]

Moderator note: This thread was split from the following thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-religion-survey-2014.143540/

Links to older threads:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/denial-of-evolution-iv.97099/
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/denial-of-evolution-v.112778/
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/denial-of-evolution-vi.143718/
----

Almost all of science is based on inductive probabilities and technically there is no such thing as a scientific proof. In science the highest state is that of a scientific theory where an element of doubt is always retained. Science does not assert any certainties. Compare that to religions where they start with assertions of certainty.

I disagree. The media and teachers tell people/students in a matter of fact way that science theory is actual fact. Evolution for example.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I disagree. The media and teachers tell people/students in a matter of fact way that science theory is actual fact. Evolution for example.

You seem to be getting confused between proof, theory and fact.
Evolution is a fact - it happens.
The "theory" part is about exactly how it happens - the precise details.

 

[davewhite04]

You seem to be getting confused between proof, theory and fact.
Evolution is a fact - it happens.
The "theory" part is about exactly how it happens - the precise details.

I don't want this to turn into an evolution discussion, only micro evolution can be classed as a fact.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I don't want this to turn into an evolution discussion

Not surprising...

only micro evolution can be classed as a fact.

Since this shows you don't know the subject.

And nicely evaded on your ignorance of "fact", "proof" and "theory".

 

[Seattle]

Of course not, this conversation wouldn't exist if I could.

Why did you come up with "aliens" as the most likely explanation? It seems like it would be the least likely explanation.

Regarding evolution, there is no "micro" and "macro" evolution...just evolution. All of the small changes result in the larger changes. Those aren't terms that you've learned about from a science class. It's something you've picked up by religious indoctrination.

 

[leopold]

I was just referring to the fact that no matter what science has tried in the lab to create life, even unfair tests, they cannot create life, the simplest form, not even a hypothetical nanobe.

cannot doesn't equate to hasn't yet.
i agree that "life" hasn't been hatched in a lab, i disagree to whether it can or not.
if you have given the subject much thought you will come to 3 conclusions.
1. life is totally out of our league, what we see as life is the effects of something else.
2. the inability of science to create "life" might be the result of 2 problems.
a. semantics, science doesn't have a good, clear, definition.
b. technology, we probably don't have the tools, probably computing power, that we need.
3. life happened just like everyone says, just because.

and the craziest part is, we as humans are connected to the universe by time.
believe me, it will drive you insane thinking about it.

 

[davewhite04]

Why did you come up with "aliens" as the most likely explanation? It seems like it would be the least likely explanation.

We(humans) have been on this earth in some form for around 200k years. We don't know, there isn't really a scientific theory of real substance that explains how life begun. We know humans can be created naturally, so why not other intelligent life, at some far distant time away, be created also? Is that not ignorance and arrogant? Imagine how advanced, finally tuned they would be? Ultimate warriors, ultimate philosophers, ultimate scientists etc...

 

[spidergoat]

We(humans) have been on this earth in some form for around 200k years. We don't know, there isn't really a scientific theory of real substance that explains how life begun. We know humans can be created naturally, so why not other intelligent life, at some far distant time away, be created also? Is that not ignorance and arrogant? Imagine how advanced, finally tuned they would be? Ultimate warriors, ultimate philosophers, ultimate scientists etc...

There are several plausible theories about the origin of life.

 

[Cris]

I disagree. The media and teachers tell people/students in a matter of fact way that science theory is actual fact. Evolution for example.

The problem here is the confusion between facts and theory.

Evolution, as in the change in allele frequency over time, is an observed fact. Evolution, as in Gradualism or Punctuated Equilibrium, is a set of theories seeking to explain those facts. Evolution has occurred and is occurring, that is fact, how it occurs is a matter of theory.

The sun rose today - that is fact - it will likely rise tomorrow - that is theory.

In science, the factual assumption of some theories can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

The typical media are inherently unreliable when reporting science, and many teachers are not as precise as they should be. It is also possible for many to interpret what they hear rather than hear what is actually said.

 

[Cris]

We(humans) have been on this earth in some form for around 200k years. We don't know, there isn't really a scientific theory of real substance that explains how life begun. We know humans can be created naturally, so why not other intelligent life, at some far distant time away, be created also? Is that not ignorance and arrogant? Imagine how advanced, finally tuned they would be? Ultimate warriors, ultimate philosophers, ultimate scientists etc...

I don't think anyone strongly disagrees with you, apart from perhaps your choice of wording, but otherwise life in some form elsewhere cannot be ruled out since we know it at least exists on one place, so why not elsewhere?

 

[Cris]

Without nature humans might as well not exist. What is most important in your life Cris?

Humans are a part of nature and not separate from it. Nature also includes disease and decay as well as beauty. As for me - health and freedom to pursue whatever I wish.

 

[Cris]

How could you enjoy well being if you have not experienced horror. For every negative there is a postive.

No that does not follow. The two states are independent of each other. I do not need to experience darkness to value the benefit of light. The darkness would simply be an irritant if I needed light at that moment. Similarly I do not need to experience cancer to value being cancer free.

If darkness and cancer never existed it would not devalue the benefits of light and health.

 

[Seattle]

We(humans) have been on this earth in some form for around 200k years. We don't know, there isn't really a scientific theory of real substance that explains how life begun. We know humans can be created naturally, so why not other intelligent life, at some far distant time away, be created also? Is that not ignorance and arrogant? Imagine how advanced, finally tuned they would be? Ultimate warriors, ultimate philosophers, ultimate scientists etc...

The question wasn't is it possible or likely that there is life on other planets. It was that your most likely scenario for mica being transported to Teotihuacan was for aliens to have done it.

Consider just how hard it would be for us to transport a large quantity of mica to Mars. Consider that the nearest planet is over 4 light years away. You can't possible believe what you are saying if you are thinking about it in the least.

 

[davewhite04]

The problem here is the confusion between facts and theory.

Evolution, as in the change in allele frequency over time, is an observed fact. Evolution, as in Gradualism or Punctuated Equilibrium, is a set of theories seeking to explain those facts. Evolution has occurred and is occurring, that is fact, how it occurs is a matter of theory.

The sun rose today - that is fact - it will likely rise tomorrow - that is theory.

In science, the factual assumption of some theories can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

The typical media are inherently unreliable when reporting science, and many teachers are not as precise as they should be. It is also possible for many to interpret what they hear rather than hear what is actually said.

Cris, evolution as in man evolving from a simple cell cannot be observed and can only be believed.

Even the few fossils we have of ancient man only tells us that "possibly" we came from a lesser form, for want of a better word.

 

[GeoffP]

Cris, evolution as in man evolving from a simple cell cannot be observed and can only be believed.

It can be inferred from the fossil record, and from the process of microevolution. Major morphological changes are also commonly observed.

Even the few fossils we have of ancient man only tells us that "possibly" we came from a lesser form, for want of a better word.

I admit the fossil record of man is not well complete, but it contains more forms putatively related to man than a pile of dust.

 

[davewhite04]

It can be inferred from the fossil record, and from the process of microevolution.

Don't mention "micro evolution", you might be branded an ignorant religious fruitcake who uses religious doctrine terms. Micro evolution is fact in my book.

 

[GeoffP]

Macroevolution is also fact. Why should changes over time always merely meander back and forth instead of going to another state in some cases?

 

[leopold]

Macroevolution is also fact. Why should changes over time always merely meander back and forth instead of going to another state in some cases?

that's what the fossil record shows.
gaps in the record, where the transitional fossils should be.

 

[davewhite04]

Macroevolution is also fact. Why should changes over time always merely meander back and forth instead of going to another state in some cases?

So the formula for macro evolution is micro evolution + time = macro evolution. Fair enough. It is not fact however as it can never be tested in the lab outside of viruses mutating, which is micro evolution. The virus that mutated is still a virus.

 

[GeoffP]

that's what the fossil record shows.
gaps in the record, where the transitional fossils should be.

The rarity of fossilization and the inherent similarities strongly imply connections even across these short transitional gaps. Otherwise why such similarity? Why such genetic relatedness? Why the gross morphological similarity?

Related to the above, when we find the fossils occupying such gaps, will the new complaint be that we don't have the fossils from just before and just after the transitional fossil - newer, even smaller gaps? And then, when those are found, the ones just before and after them? And so on and so on, putting God in increasingly small spaces. Is this then your new 'god of the gaps'? Sounds schizophrenic, if you ask me.

Also, it sounds like the existence of any gap at all must mean that you, personally, cannot accept macroevolution. Perhaps it would only be acceptable to you if were able to find the exact immediate ancestor of each individual animal. After all, God could have operated there, too, couldn't he? They say He goeth like a thief in the night; but as I recall, you creationists aren't too keen on the idea of an animal rapidly changing.

You know, unless God did it. That's some magic box you've got there.