Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.

Because those who know the field(s) find it the best explanation for the data.It is only those who have accepted certain beliefs for religious reasons who can't then accept the theory of evolution. But that is not based on the evidence--it is based on belief. And, as Heinlein has noted, "Belief gets in the way of learning."There is no better demonstration of this than creationists and the theory of evolution.

---

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

Evolution is a theory, supported by evidence. It is the single best explanation for that body of evidence. Atheism has nothing to do with it. Nor does "belief." We are not dealing with "truth," "Truth," "TRUTH," or even "TRVTH" in science. We are dealing with what the evidence shows.And you have not "learned" evolution. You have accepted a specific set of beliefs for religious reasons--these beliefs have nothing to do with evidence. In fact, they are contradicted by the evidence. But, because your beliefs are not based on evidence you won't change them because of any evidence.That is not the way science works. It is in fact the exact opposite.So don't tell us you have "learned" evolution. Spend six years in graduate school studying the field, as I have, and maybe you will learn something. But given your a priori beliefs, that is doubtful. We have seen this over and over--once you accept the religious beliefs you have, you can't accept the evidence for evolution no matter how convincing it is. And you can't do science.

---

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

Let's try another test of your scientific prowess:Do you accept the scientific evidence for an old earth?

---

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

I don't intend to turn this thread into one dealing with evidence for an old earth.You answered the question I asked.You clearly are willing to follow religious belief no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, all the while clinging to standard creationist apologetics--all of which has been refuted thousands of times.No point in presenting evidence to one whose mind is so closed.

---

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

Nonsense. You're just a creationist.Rationalization and apologetics is all you have left.(See tagline.)

---

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

From RationalWiki:

A response by E.J. Wagenmakers et al. highlights some of the major issues that call into question the validity of the analysis by Bem.[2]

​
• Bem has published his own research methodology and encourages the formulation of hypotheses after data analysis. This form of post-hoc analysis makes it very difficult to determine accurate statistical significance. It also explains why Bem offers specific hypotheses that seem odd a priori, such as erotic images having a greater precognitive effect. Constructing hypotheses from the same data range used to test those hypotheses is a classic example of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy
  
• The paper uses the fallacy of the transposed conditional to make the case for psi powers. Essentially mixing up the difference between the probability of data given a hypothesis versus the probability of a hypothesis given data.
  
• Wagenmakers' analysis of the data using a Bayesian t-test removes the significant effects claimed by Bem.

​

Any new result in any field of science requires extensive independent replication before it can be accepted as valid. This is no different for psychic powers, drug studies, or theories of physics. At least one replication of one of the tasks Bem used has failed to show significance[1], and hopefully others will attempt additional replications. Researcher Richard Wiseman is attempting to create a registry of replication attempts to control for publication bias.

​

In the end the paper offers some promising methods but should not be taken as evidence for precognition without extensive independent replication of the results, particularly since there are significant questions about the introduction of bias into the analysis of the data.

​

Source

Edited by Coyote, : Speeling

---

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

Perhaps that would be a better topic for a new thread?

Now that sounds like dogma!

---

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

You seem to be arguing from a belief in some mythical "fall."Your argument is not supported by real world evidence.Mutations can be deleterious, neutral, or beneficial in relation to a particular environment.Of course, if that environment changes the deleterious, neutral, or beneficial has to be reevaluated in light of that new environment.For example, the mutation for light skin would be deleterious in Africa, while it was highly beneficial in moving into and north of Europe during the recent ice age.And you are not looking at just one mutation at a time; each generation has hundreds of mutations.

---

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