Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-22-2017 1:08 PM
365 online now:
Aussie, caffeine, DrJones*, Faith, JonF, Meddle, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Tangle (10 members, 355 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,288 Year: 23,894/21,208 Month: 1,859/2,468 Week: 368/822 Day: 28/66 Hour: 3/8

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2324
25
2627
...
30Next
Author Topic:   Evidence for Evolution: Whale evolution
Dredge
Member
Posts: 575
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 361 of 443 (804518)
04-10-2017 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by Tangle
04-09-2017 5:06 PM


Talk is cheap and I'll call your bluff - please give me an example of how the belief that all life evolved from a single-cell organism has, as you say, "enormous scientific value"?  

--------------------------

"Knowledge needs no justification"?   Really?  Ok then, I have no need to justify believing in the Tooth Fairy or that a fleet of UFOs is parked on the darkmside of the moon - these will pass as knowledge.  Imagine what would happen to mathematics if knowledge didn't need to be justified - someone could claim 1+1= 3.

Clearly, knowledge needs be justified, otherwise every conceivable belief and idiotic idea qualifies as knowledge, which would result in a world infinitely more insane than it already is.  

So in short, you are talking patent nonsense.

-----------------------------

You claim that ToE has "overturned" what is written in the Bible.  As I pointed out in my previous  post, it is impossible to overturn a belief with another belief that cannot be establshed as a fact.  Otherwise, it comes down to nothing more than a matter of one opinion verses another opinon.   So what you need to do is stop talking rubbish and demonstrate how an untestable theory can be established as a fact - which even the village knows is impossible, so I wish you luck.  

If you can't demonstrate how the aforementioned impossiblity can be made possible, then I will have no choice but to conclude that your aptitude for talking nonsense is very impressive and your aptitude for thinking logically is not so impressive.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Tangle, posted 04-09-2017 5:06 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by Coyote, posted 04-10-2017 7:34 PM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 368 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-10-2017 7:42 PM Dredge has responded
 Message 375 by Tangle, posted 04-10-2017 8:56 PM Dredge has responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 575
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 362 of 443 (804519)
04-10-2017 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by Tangle
04-09-2017 4:30 PM


"Evolutionists ... get to make the definition of evolution".  

Unfortunately, evolution science can't be trusted to tell the truth.  The definition of evolution includes both micro- and macro-evolution, which permits evolutionists to get away with calling antibiotic resistance an example or evolution, for example.  The process that allegedly allowed all life to evolve from a single-cell organism (macroevolution) requires much more than what is going on in antibiotic resistance (which is merely natural selection).  
In other words, the term "evolution" is very misleading.

-------------------------

"And I suppose dripping water into a cup never fills it either".  We know from observation that a certain amount of change can occur in a species, but to extrapolate this to potentially unlimited change is another matter.

Let me ask you this:  
Since the human beings are running the 100 meters sprint much faster than they were, say, 60 years ago, does this mean that they can run it still faster?  Based on the available evidence, can the prediction be made that the current world record will be broken?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Tangle, posted 04-09-2017 4:30 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-10-2017 7:39 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 575
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 363 of 443 (804520)
04-10-2017 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by Percy
04-08-2017 7:34 AM


Perhaps I choose the wrong words and didn't express myself properlly previously. What I need is an example of how the belief that all life evolved from a single-cell organism (macroevolution) is useful.  You've given some examples of microevoluton, which is not what I'm after.  I already know that microevolution has many uses.

-----------------------------

I never claimed that something has to be of practical use to be true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Percy, posted 04-08-2017 7:34 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by jar, posted 04-10-2017 7:27 PM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 376 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-10-2017 9:59 PM Dredge has responded
 Message 378 by Percy, posted 04-11-2017 7:45 AM Dredge has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29363
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 364 of 443 (804521)
04-10-2017 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Dredge
04-10-2017 7:24 PM


Dredge writes:

What I need is an example of how the belief that all life evolved from a single-cell organism (macroevolution) is useful.

To the best of my knowledge no one but Creationists would ever say something that silly or misuse terms so completely.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2017 7:24 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5989
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 365 of 443 (804522)
04-10-2017 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by Dredge
04-10-2017 7:01 PM


You claim that ToE has "overturned" what is written in the Bible. As I pointed out in my previous post, it is impossible to overturn a belief with another belief that cannot be establshed as a fact.

But it should be possible to "overturn" a belief with established facts. Unfortunately, with creationists, that is not possible.

Scientists (who know about these things) have established a number of evolutionary sequences that 1) explain all the relevant evidence, 2) are contradicted by no relevant evidence, and 3) allow successful predictions. Whale evolution is just one of many.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2017 7:01 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 575
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 366 of 443 (804523)
04-10-2017 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Coyote
04-07-2017 10:35 PM


The theory of that all life evolved from a single-cell organism cannot be put to the test, so this means that this theory lies outside the realm of the scientific method.  

So if, as you say, "Science is defined by following the scientific method", then said theory isn't science.  Said theory is known as the theory of evolution.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Coyote, posted 04-07-2017 10:35 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by Coyote, posted 04-10-2017 7:53 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 367 of 443 (804524)
04-10-2017 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by Dredge
04-10-2017 7:20 PM


Unfortunately, evolution science can't be trusted to tell the truth.

And yet the thing you're whining about is in fact the exact truth, as you will now admit:

The definition of evolution includes both micro- and macro-evolution, which permits evolutionists to get away with calling antibiotic resistance an example or evolution, for example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2017 7:20 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 368 of 443 (804525)
04-10-2017 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by Dredge
04-10-2017 7:01 PM


Talk is cheap and I'll call your bluff - please give me an example of how the belief that all life evolved from a single-cell organism has, as you say, "enormous scientific value"?

Truth is valuable to some people. I don't expect someone like you to understand.

"Knowledge needs no justification"? Really? Ok then, I have no need to justify believing in the Tooth Fairy or that a fleet of UFOs is parked on the darkmside of the moon - these will pass as knowledge. Imagine what would happen to mathematics if knowledge didn't need to be justified - someone could claim 1+1= 3.

Clearly, knowledge needs be justified, otherwise every conceivable belief and idiotic idea qualifies as knowledge, which would result in a world infinitely more insane than it already is.

Do you think your pathetic attempts at twisting words will convince anyone of anything except that you are deeply, wretchedly dishonest? What do you aim to achieve by degrading yourself in this way?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2017 7:01 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by Dredge, posted 04-11-2017 6:40 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5989
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 369 of 443 (804526)
04-10-2017 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by Dredge
04-10-2017 7:37 PM


The theory of that all life evolved from a single-cell organism cannot be put to the test, so this means that this theory lies outside the realm of the scientific method.

Study the scientific method and get back to us.

Hint: avoid the creationist websites, as they will lie to you.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2017 7:37 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 575
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 370 of 443 (804527)
04-10-2017 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by jar
04-10-2017 6:50 PM


Actually, you are technicaly correct when you say that there are no creation scientists, since creation lies outside the realm of the scientific method and is therefore not science. Instead of using the term, "creation scientist", in future I shall endeavour to use something like, "scientists who believe in creation".

But the belief that all life evolved from a single-cell organism also lies beyond the realm of the scientific method and is therefore not science, so if there is no such thing as a "creation scientist" there is also no such thing as a "evolution scientist" either.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by jar, posted 04-10-2017 6:50 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by jar, posted 04-10-2017 8:07 PM Dredge has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29363
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 371 of 443 (804528)
04-10-2017 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by Dredge
04-10-2017 7:55 PM


Dredge writes:

Actually, you are technicaly correct when you say that there are no creation scientists, since creation lies outside the realm of the scientific method and is therefore not science. Instead of using the term, "creation scientist", in future I shall endeavour to use something like, "scientists who believe in creation".

That would be better but still meaningless and worthless.

Dredge writes:

But the belief that all life evolved from a single-cell organism also lies beyond the realm of the scientific method and is therefore not science, so if there is no such thing as a "creation scientist" there is also no such thing as a "evolution scientist" either.

And that is simply another really ignorant statement as expected. How life began has absolutely nothing to do with either the fact of evolution or that the Theory of Evolution is the only explanation for what is sen in reality.

And that still has nothing to do with the fact that whale evolution is great support for both the fact that evolution happens and that the Theory of Evolution is the only explanation for the reality seen around us.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2017 7:55 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2017 8:16 PM jar has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 575
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 372 of 443 (804529)
04-10-2017 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by jar
04-10-2017 8:07 PM


I didn't mention abiogenesis, did I?

--------------------------------

How do you apply the scientific method to confirm the theory that all life evolved from a single-cell organism?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by jar, posted 04-10-2017 8:07 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by jar, posted 04-10-2017 8:35 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29363
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 373 of 443 (804530)
04-10-2017 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by Dredge
04-10-2017 8:16 PM


Do you have a point other than trying to market your folk stories?
And even abiogenesis does not say "that all life evolved from a single-cell organism" or the fact that whale evolution is great support for both the fact that evolution happens and that the Theory of Evolution is the only explanation for the reality seen around us.

I really have to wonder if you have any point?

Dredge writes:

How do you apply the scientific method to confirm the theory that all life evolved from a single-cell organism?

First, you find someone other than a Creationist that thinks there is such a theory.

The first step would be for you to learn some basic terminology; what a theory is, what a hypothesis is, you know, the stuff taught in elementary school.

Then you try to post something that has some relation to the topic.

Edited by jar, : hit wrong key.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2017 8:16 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5989
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 374 of 443 (804532)
04-10-2017 8:48 PM


A few definitions
Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process. [Source]

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.

The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!

So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by Theodoric, posted 04-10-2017 10:07 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5060
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 375 of 443 (804533)
04-10-2017 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by Dredge
04-10-2017 7:01 PM


Dredge writes:

Talk is cheap and I'll call your bluff - please give me an example of how the belief that all life evolved from a single-cell organism has, as you say, "enormous scientific value"?

It's a fact, not a belief.

Get your language straight. When talking about things that we accept but that are not supported by evidence we call them beliefs. When talking about things that we know to be true because they are supported by evidence they are called facts.

It's an astounding discovery that all life is interelated and has a common ancestor. Knowledge that explains all life on earth is by definition of enormous scientific value. To think otherwise is just crass ignorance.

Knowledge needs no justification"? Really? Ok then, I have no need to justify believing in the Tooth Fairy or that a fleet of UFOs is parked on the darkmside of the moon - these will pass as knowledge. Imagine what would happen to mathematics if knowledge didn't need to be justified - someone could claim 1+1= 3.

You just confused knowledge with fantasy and lies. Knowledge is, by definition, known to be factually true.

"Knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject."

So in short, you are talking patent nonsense.

It seems to me that it was you that confused belief in the tooth fairy with knowledge.

You claim that ToE has "overturned" what is written in the Bible. As I pointed out in my previous post, it is impossible to overturn a belief with another belief that cannot be establshed as a fact.

Well, of course that statement is wrong. Beliefs are overturned by other unevidenced beliefs all the time. How else are converts made? But scientific knowledge is not belief, there is no necessity to believe in facts - they are facts.

Otherwise, it comes down to nothing more than a matter of one opinion verses another opinion.

Well, that is your wish. Unfortunately for you scientific knowledge is backed by evidence. Feel free to study it so that you'll at least understand what it is that you are disagreeing with. I mean, you didn't even know what speciation was, whilst claiming that it couldn't happen. That's like not knowing that the internal combustion engine runs on gasoline whilst telling the engineer he's wrong about why your car isn't working. Your ignorance is telling.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2017 7:01 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by Dredge, posted 04-11-2017 6:57 PM Tangle has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2324
25
2627
...
30Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017