Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

[rossum]

Yet they have no empirical evidence macro-evolution happens.

False. Those creationist websites are lying to you again. I have already given you the evidence of macro-evolution in lacewings and crayfish. Do you really think that repeating false information form creo websites will convince anyone?

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Do you really think that repeating false information form creo websites will convince anyone?

Do you really think that repeating false information form evo websites will convince anyone?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

That’s better. Well, not by much. But at least you don’t look stupid trying to deny something that you don’t understand, which nobody else is proposing as a fact and which doesn’t deny God in any case.

Did you watch?

I didn’t know I had to. Does it have any bearing on this thread? Otherwise start a new thread on fine tuning and we’ll all join in. As long as you promise not to mention the multiverse, OK?

 

[rossum]

Do you really think that repeating false information form evo websites will convince anyone?

I am not repeating information from websites. I gave links to the scientific literature: Tauber and Tauber (1977) for the lacewings and Lyko (2017) for the crayfish.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

I am not repeating information from websites. I gave links to the scientific literature: Tauber and Tauber (1977) for the lacewings and Lyko (2017) for the crayfish.

How do you know they are true, since an evo formed brain is not a reliable truth detector? Why do you even seek truth if you do not believe it exists? Seems very unreliable to me.

 

[edwest211]

Oh please. Some years back, I was reading the newspaper and people with authority said bacon is bad for you. Then, some months later, bacon was OK. Then the same thing happened with coffee. I started noticing a pattern. More recently, my doctor told me to avoid or eat as little as possible, from a list of foods. The newspaper started to seem less credible.

 

[buffalo]

am not repeating information from websites. I gave links to the scientific literature: Tauber and Tauber (1977) for the lacewings and Lyko (2017) for the crayfish.

rossum

Not even a mention of evolution.

But,

“Given the potential role of microtholi in courtship, we suspect that the above variation may indicate at least some reproductive isolation between eastern and western populations.”

This is adaptation.

 

[Metis1]

Oh please. Some years back, I was reading the newspaper and people with authority said bacon is bad for you. Then, some months later, bacon was OK.

“Oh please”, bacon is still bad for you unless you’re starving or malnourished.

 

[edwest211]

Not according to that newspaper article.

 

[rossum]

How do you know they are true, since an evo formed brain is not a reliable truth detector?

I know it is true (beyond reasonable doubt) because the scientific method is an excellent tried and tested truth detector.

I also know that theology is nowhere near as good. Just look at how many different interpretations of the Bible there, with thousands of different Christian denominations offering differing interpretations of their version of the Bible.

The evidence shows that science is more accurate then theology at eliminating errors. Hence, the theologically based creationist objections to evolution is less reliable than the scientific support for evolution.

Why do you even seek truth if you do not believe it exists?

You again misremember what I said: “The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.” I only claim that ultimate truth does not exist. Ordinary truth certainly exists.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

also know that theology is nowhere near as good. Just look at how many different interpretations of the Bible there, with thousands of different Christian denominations offering differing interpretations of their version of the Bible.

Sola Scriptura is why. Biblical interpretation is not a personal thing. It requires the 3 legged stool of Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium. They have taked 2 legs away and no wonder the stool toppled.

 

[buffalo]

The evidence shows that science is more accurate then theology at eliminating errors. Hence, the theologically based creationist objections to evolution is less reliable than the scientific support for evolution.

Provisional science is always changing. Now we are seeing it correct the evolution error.

 

[buffalo]

I only claim that ultimate truth does not exist. Ordinary truth certainly exists.

Ordinary truth? Please define.

 

[o_mlly]

To keep this as simple as possible, your ‘undoubtable and obvious facts’ are ‘that which are observed’. Which could be directly or indirectly.

And the ‘assumptions’ are what the theory predicts. As in: Based on the facts as observed and the theory as proposed we can assume that X, Y and Z.

This is close to being an intro to fourth grade science.

Does your school offer a remedial course in fourth grade science? You might look into enrolling as you are a bit confused as to how theories in science are constructed.

as·sump·tion

əˈsəm(p)SH(ə)n/

noun

1. 1.a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

Assumptions in formulating theories​

An assumption (or axiom) is a statement that is accepted without evidence. For example, assumptions can be used as premises in a logical argument. Isaac Asimov described assumptions as follows:

…it is incorrect to speak of an assumption as either true or false, since there is no way of proving it to be either (If there were, it would no longer be an assumption). It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them corresponded to reality…Since we must start somewhere, we must have assumptions, but at least let us have as few assumptions as possible.[

But with even a “walkback” on the use of assumptions, I’ll take the walkback from “undoubtable and obviuos facts” to only theories as forward movement on your part.

I remind you of your previous claim. Sounds like an “assumption” or an observation?

But the DIRECT line from that split to us gradually evolved to the point where we undoubtedly and obviously could.

 

[Bradskii]

Ah. I see your problem. You think a theory needs proof. That it has to be ‘true’ or false’. It doesn’t. But it makes assumptions based on the available data. Those assumptions are not true or false and are not proven as they stand because there is no evidence (otherwise it would be incorporated into the theory) but they can be verified by obtaining more data. Which, if obtained, adds to and strengthens but does not prove the theory.

And the only criteria for a theory is that it proposes a reason for the available data. As in:

‘In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae, and calculated the Hubble law. He based his theory…etc’.

See if you can pick some holes in that. No rush - I’m off for a few beers.

 

[o_mlly]

Ah. I see your problem. You think a theory needs proof. That it has to be ‘true’ or false’. It doesn’t. But it makes assumptions based on the available data. Those assumptions are not true or false and are not proven as they stand because there is no evidence (otherwise it would be incorporated into the theory) but they can be verified by obtaining more data. Which, if obtained, adds to and strengthens but does not prove the theory.

And the only criteria for a theory is that it proposes a reason for the available data. As in:

‘In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae, and calculated the Hubble law. He based his theory…etc’.

See if you can pick some holes in that. No rush - I’m off for a few beers.

It appears that you’ve started early to adjust your attitude with a few brewskis as the post makes little sense.

You are still confused. Theories are not assumptions. Theories attempt to cohere the evidence of the observations and to be scientific only need to be falsifiable. Embedding assumptions in a theory dramatically weakens the theory.

But you now revert from “moonwalking” back prior claims to the familiar bradskii “dodgeball” game. I will only remind you that I accept your change from “obvious and undoubtable facts” to “falsifiable theories” as a modest success.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Ah. I see your problem. You think a theory needs proof. That it has to be ‘true’ or false’. It doesn’t. But it makes assumptions based on the available data. Those assumptions are not true or false and are not proven as they stand because there is no evidence (otherwise it would be incorporated into the theory) but they can be verified by obtaining more data. Which, if obtained, adds to and strengthens but does not prove the theory.

And the only criteria for a theory is that it proposes a reason for the available data. As in:

‘In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae, and calculated the Hubble law. He based his theory…etc’.

See if you can pick some holes in that. No rush - I’m off for a few beers.

It appears that you’ve started early to adjust your attitude with a few brewskis as the post makes little sense.

You are still confused. Theories are not assumptions. Theories attempt to cohere the evidence of the observations and to be scientific only need to be falsifiable. Embedding assumptions in a theory dramatically weakens the theory.

Literally out of the door…but NO. Theories MAKE assumptions based on available evidence. As I said above: It (the theory) MAKES assumptions…etc.

You DON’T embed assumptions within a theory. A theory is based on evidence. If the assumptions that the theory makes are correct then that is classed as evidence and is THEN embeded within the theory.

Don’t expect a response to any reply. I have given up on any further attempts to explain basic science. Please have the last word on me.

 

[rossum]

Sola Scriptura is why. Biblical interpretation is not a personal thing. It requires the 3 legged stool of Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium. They have taked 2 legs away and no wonder the stool toppled.

That is one of many differing theological interpretations. There are many theologians who will disagree with you. And even among those who (mostly) agree they might differ on whether or not the Patriarch of Constantinople or the Archbishop of Canterbury constitute part of the “Magisterium”.

There is a huge range of theological opinion. There is a far narrower range of scientific opinion, primarily because science is better at correcting mistaken interpretations of the evidence.

You have shown no evidence that macro-evolution does not happen. I have shown evidence that macro-evolution happens. In science the balance of the evidence wins.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Ordinary truth? Please define.

Ordinary everyday truth. In Thomist terms I only accept the Accident of Truth; I deny the Substance of truth. That is general; Madhyamika Buddhism denies all Substance and only accepts Accident.

The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield

In short, “What you see is what you get.” In Plato’s cave there are only the shadows.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Ordinary everyday truth.

As in reality?