Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2017 10:05 AM
401 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, edge, PaulK, Tanypteryx (5 members, 396 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,203 Year: 16,809/21,208 Month: 2,698/3,593 Week: 165/646 Day: 43/62 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
15NextFF
Author Topic:   No Witnesses
ookuay
Junior Member (Idle past 1330 days)
Posts: 20
Joined: 01-24-2012


(1)
Message 1 of 215 (650825)
02-02-2012 8:10 PM


"No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact." ~Alabama State Board of Education

Are witnesses really necessary to count evolution as a legitimate theory? I think the definition of "observation" in the scientific method is being misconstrued here. Microevolution, natural selection, artificial selection, and even macroevolution have been witnessed. The fossil record, embryological+genetic+anatomical homologies, and gradualism are all observed data as well.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by 1.61803, posted 02-03-2012 9:27 AM ookuay has not yet responded
 Message 4 by hooah212002, posted 02-03-2012 9:44 AM ookuay has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-03-2012 9:59 AM ookuay has not yet responded
 Message 7 by frako, posted 02-03-2012 1:18 PM ookuay has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Pressie, posted 02-08-2012 6:30 AM ookuay has not yet responded
 Message 22 by shadow71, posted 02-09-2012 7:54 PM ookuay has not yet responded
 Message 95 by onifre, posted 03-25-2012 7:50 PM ookuay has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12516
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2 of 215 (650827)
02-03-2012 9:21 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the No Witnesses thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2687
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 3 of 215 (650829)
02-03-2012 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ookuay
02-02-2012 8:10 PM


That is the most asinine thing I ever heard. lol!
Witnesses are not necessary to count evolution as a legit theory, just scientific facts presented as evidence suffice.
Any how abiogenisus has nothing to do with evolution.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ookuay, posted 02-02-2012 8:10 PM ookuay has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 4 of 215 (650833)
02-03-2012 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ookuay
02-02-2012 8:10 PM


"...should be considered as theory, not fact."

I think the Alabama SBoE needs a refresher course on the proper usage of those two words.


“Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion.” Joseph Campbell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ookuay, posted 02-02-2012 8:10 PM ookuay has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15936
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(5)
Message 5 of 215 (650837)
02-03-2012 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ookuay
02-02-2012 8:10 PM


"No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact." ~Alabama State Board of Education

Well, that is obviously stupid.

There is something to be said about the origin of life, and a non-crazy person might phrase it like this: "There is insufficient evidence to confirm any hypothesis about the origin of life on earth. Therefore, these hypotheses should be regarded as hypotheses and not elevated to the status of theories."

Are witnesses really necessary to count evolution as a legitimate theory?

Well of course not. I like to imagine creationists trying to use their bogus epistemology in a court case: "Yes, members of the jury, the prosecution may have presented you with fingerprint evidence, DNA evidence, gunshot residue, a signed confession, the fact that my client was arrested while standing over his victims holding a smoking gun, and video footage of him killing all the eyewitnesses. But they haven't produced any eyewitnesses."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ookuay, posted 02-02-2012 8:10 PM ookuay has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29039
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 6 of 215 (650852)
02-03-2012 11:03 AM


The "stones will cry out".

There were witnesses and those witnesses left evidence behind for those with eyes to see and stories for those with ears to hear.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2699
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 7 of 215 (650902)
02-03-2012 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ookuay
02-02-2012 8:10 PM


No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact.

No witness was present when the victim was murdered so the suspect should be called a killer not a murderer.

This is basicly what they said.

Are witnesses really necessary to count evolution as a legitimate theory?

Are witnesses necessary to convict someone of murder?

In terms of a court trial the evidence we curently have is
The gun found in the suspects belongings
Bullets found in the suspects belongings
Fingerprints of the suspect on the gun
Fingerprints of the suspect in the victims house
DNA of the suspect on the victim
The bullet recovered from the victims body matching the suspects gun
A pattern of behaviour of the suspect seen killing other people numerous of times
No Alibi
Videotape of the suspect being in the vicinity of the murder douring the time of the murder
motive
And statements of police officers of finding the suspect looking over the victims corpse with a gun in his hand.

The defence argues that the suspect dint kill the victim but a magic invisible undetectable man did.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ookuay, posted 02-02-2012 8:10 PM ookuay has not yet responded

    
ookuay
Junior Member (Idle past 1330 days)
Posts: 20
Joined: 01-24-2012


(1)
Message 8 of 215 (650936)
02-03-2012 2:45 PM


Right
I completely agree- I was looking more for creationists to back up the Alabama Board. You can read the quote in context at: http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1995/dec95/textbook.html
Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by NoNukes, posted 02-03-2012 5:33 PM ookuay has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9653
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 9 of 215 (650983)
02-03-2012 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by ookuay
02-03-2012 2:45 PM


A current concern?
The information in your link suggests that the Alabama label for biology texts is at least 15 years old.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ookuay, posted 02-03-2012 2:45 PM ookuay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ookuay, posted 02-04-2012 12:23 AM NoNukes has responded

    
ookuay
Junior Member (Idle past 1330 days)
Posts: 20
Joined: 01-24-2012


(1)
Message 10 of 215 (651028)
02-04-2012 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by NoNukes
02-03-2012 5:33 PM


Re: A current concern?
Interestingly, that label exists till today- http://ncse.com/...1/03/creationism-alabama-standards-006570.

You're still correct that the referenced version of the disclaimer is outdated and almost everyone already knows better- my objective is to find the few people the answer has not reached (there are always a handful) for a paper because the prompt itself references this label from late 1995. This argument should still be in use by the uninformed (searching up something like "no one there to see evolution").


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by NoNukes, posted 02-03-2012 5:33 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by NoNukes, posted 02-04-2012 5:27 AM ookuay has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9653
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 11 of 215 (651032)
02-04-2012 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by ookuay
02-04-2012 12:23 AM


Re: A current concern?
Are witnesses really necessary to count evolution as a legitimate theory? I think the definition of "observation" in the scientific method is being misconstrued here. Microevolution, natural selection, artificial selection, and even macroevolution have been witnessed. The fossil record, embryological+genetic+anatomical homologies, and gradualism are all observed data as well.

I don't think there is any problem with the use of the word observation, and I'd take issue with the your statement that macroevolution has been witnessed.

Witnessed implies direct observation by a human witness. The evidence for gradual processes that take longer than a human lifetime cannot possibly be direct. Evolution is supported by the evidence, and absent a time machine, we won't ever have observations of human evolution.

In the end, statements like the one on the Alabama sticker are just personal expressions of incredulity projected unto the rest of us. A person obligated to take the Bible literally because alternative is having his potentially immortal soul destroyed in Hell, isn't going to accept evidence for evolution, regardless of its strength or Faustian persuasive power, as long as there is even a scintilla of hope of that Genesis is literally true. Of course personal incredulity is not a valid reason for rewriting a science course.

I wouldn't bet any money on the currently constructed Supreme Court upholding the first amendment.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ookuay, posted 02-04-2012 12:23 AM ookuay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by ookuay, posted 02-04-2012 9:29 PM NoNukes has responded
 Message 15 by Rrhain, posted 02-09-2012 6:00 AM NoNukes has responded

    
ookuay
Junior Member (Idle past 1330 days)
Posts: 20
Joined: 01-24-2012


(1)
Message 12 of 215 (651145)
02-04-2012 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by NoNukes
02-04-2012 5:27 AM


Re: A current concern?
Hm, I still figure the problem of a lack of witnesses has to do with a misconception of observations and thus evolution not following the scientific method (the opposition probably believes observation is limited to direct witnessing).

I see where you're going. Plants are hermaphroditic, so as soon as reproductive isolation occurs in one (without disabling fertility) it can begin its own population. Under 5.0 a few examples are listed, beginning with Hugo de Vries: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

At this point I doubt I'll find anyone on this forum who still agrees with the label's statement.

Edited by ookuay, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by NoNukes, posted 02-04-2012 5:27 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 02-05-2012 9:33 AM ookuay has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9653
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 13 of 215 (651175)
02-05-2012 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by ookuay
02-04-2012 9:29 PM


Re: A current concern?
the opposition probably believes observation is limited to direct witnessing).

I think they are right about that. I observe that litmus turns blue, and I conclude that the solution in question is basic. I'm not capable of observing directly that there are more hydroxyl ions than hydronium ions in the solution.

The problem is that some want to limit science to things that are directly witnesses/observed or to things were the chain of inference from observation is very short and inescapable, at least when the conclusions are contrary to their beliefs.

At this point I doubt I'll find anyone on this forum who still agrees with the label's statement.

Yes, you can find such people.

You may not find anyone who will admit it directly, but there are participants who agree with it and don't want to be trolled. Because surely a dressing down will follow shortly after any defense of the statement.

But you can find posts where people express essentially the same sentiment if you read through some past thread.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ookuay, posted 02-04-2012 9:29 PM ookuay has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1627
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 14 of 215 (651547)
02-08-2012 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ookuay
02-02-2012 8:10 PM


quote:
"No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact." ~Alabama State Board of Education
Are witnesses really necessary to count evolution as a legitimate theory? I think the definition of "observation" in the scientific method is being misconstrued here. Microevolution, natural selection, artificial selection, and even macroevolution have been witnessed. The fossil record, embryological+genetic+anatomical homologies, and gradualism are all observed data as well.
To me this also seems quite ridiculous as creationists exclude themselves from this same little "test" they want to impose on science. Witness accounts.

For example, Christians get their "information" on "creation" from the first book or two of the Bible. Nobody knows who even wrote those books. These books were not written by Adam and Eve. So, what is written down in there is hearsay. Not eyewitness accounts.

Hearsay is not accepted as evidence. Not in any court or anywhere else in civilised countries. It is only done in countries where they can kill you for not breathing in tone with the dictator or Mullah.

Their 'argument' also means that we can't deduct that any snow in Antartica before the 1820's fell from the sky, due to the fact that nobody was there to witness it. They want to indicate that snow being poofed into existence in Antartica is on equal footing with the deduction that the snow fell from the sky. It isn't.

In the end, verifiable, empirical evidence is a lot more reliable than eyewitness accounts. For example, just look at all those people who were convicted for crimes on eye-witness accounts; then later set free when empirical, verifiable evidence for their innocence was provided.

Edited by Pressie, : Spelling mistake


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ookuay, posted 02-02-2012 8:10 PM ookuay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by NoNukes, posted 02-09-2012 7:18 AM Pressie has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6098
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 15 of 215 (651673)
02-09-2012 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by NoNukes
02-04-2012 5:27 AM


NoNukes writes:

quote:
I'd take issue with the your statement that macroevolution has been witnessed.

Except that it has. We have seen speciation happen both in the lab and in the field. That's "macroevolution."

Note, there is no difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution." "Microevolution" are evolutionary processes that happen below the species level while "macroevolution" are processes that happen above the species level. You will note that there is no distinction as to what those processes are. In essence, "macroevolution" is nothing more than a whole lot of "microevolution."

After all, if 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10?

Exactly what do you mean by "macroevolution" and why do you think we haven't seen it directly?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by NoNukes, posted 02-04-2012 5:27 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by NoNukes, posted 02-09-2012 7:31 AM Rrhain has responded

    
1
23456
...
15NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017