Can you give me an observable evidence that Evolution is true?

[McBell]

It's an alternative explanation to mere chance

No it isn't.
"GodDidIt" does not explain anything.

It is nothing but wishful thinking.

the fact that Dawkins despises the alternative goes without saying, he's a staunch atheist. Hoyle despised the alternative to a static universe also for the same personal reasons, emotion, particularly hateful emotion, is not a good scientific method is it?

you are kidding right?
You ask about good scientific method in the same post claiming "GodDidIt" as an alternative explanation?

Your shameless dishonesty is disgusting.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Neither is saying "magic".

agreed, I don't think the rabbit just spontaneously appeared in the hat, even if that's all we see directly

 

[metis]

It's an alternative explanation to mere chance

the fact that Dawkins despises the alternative goes without saying, he's a staunch atheist. Hoyle despised the alternative to a static universe also for the same personal reasons, emotion, particularly hateful emotion, is not a good scientific method is it?

Actually, he's not as "staunch" as you may think because he does posit at least the hypothetical possibility that a deity or deities could exist-- he just doesn't believe in them.

 

[metis]

agreed, I don't think the rabbit just spontaneously appeared in the hat, even if that's all we see directly

That's clearly not what Dawkins was saying.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's clearly not what Dawkins was saying.

he believes life was spontaneous as in unplanned, unintended. I posit the hypothetical possibility that such spontaneous accidental creation machines could exist, I just doesn't believe in them.

 

[metis]

he believes life was spontaneous as in unplanned, unintended. I posit the hypothetical possibility that such spontaneous accidental creation machines could exist, I just doesn't believe in them.

It doesn't have to be a matter of belief. What's wrong with saying "I don't know"? Some things obviously happened, but we are far from clear as to exactly what that sequence was. Meanwhile, life goes on.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It doesn't have to be a matter of belief. What's wrong with saying "I don't know"? Some things obviously happened, but we are far from clear as to exactly what that sequence was. Meanwhile, life goes on.

I acknowledge faith, that I have belief I can't prove, we all do. and yes I think that's the healthy approach- I don't 'despise' the alternative as Dawkins does, despising the belief of the majority of humanity is problematic. At the very least it concedes that you can never change your mind, no matter the evidence.

 

[metis]

I acknowledge faith, that I have belief I can't prove, we all do. and yes I think that's the healthy approach- I don't 'despise' the alternative as Dawkins does, despising the belief of the majority of humanity is problematic. At the very least it concedes that you can never change your mind, no matter the evidence.

But do you do the same with theists when they condemn atheists and sometimes even agnostics? I've been told so often that I'm going to hell that I'm sorta looking forward to the trip.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But do you do the same with theists when they condemn atheists and sometimes even agnostics? I've been told so often that I'm going to hell that I'm sorta looking forward to the trip.

despising sin, for what it does to a person is the opposite of despising the person

 

[Nietzsche]

I acknowledge faith, that I have belief I can't prove, we all do. and yes I think that's the healthy approach- I don't 'despise' the alternative as Dawkins does, despising the belief of the majority of humanity is problematic. At the very least it concedes that you can never change your mind, no matter the evidence.

He despises it because it's the worst kind of science. Magic is not an answer, it's a cop-out. "I don't know, so magic".

Can you tell me ANY TIME assuming the super-natural has improved our understanding of ANYTHING?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

He despises it because it's the worst kind of science. Magic is not an answer, it's a cop-out. "I don't know, so magic".

Can you tell me ANY TIME assuming the super-natural has improved our understanding of ANYTHING?

Again, Lemaitre's primeval atom was despised for the exact same reason, rejected and mocked as 'Big Bang' by Hoyle for it's overt theistic implications. Nothing was considered more inherently supernatural as a specific beginning, creation event for time and space itself.

Lemaitre didn't ASSUME a supernatural answer, he simply allowed himself to be open to it by rejecting atheist dogma. I think that's the more scientific approach

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Dogs.
Dogs and humans have co-evolved along side each other to the point we are made for each other. We learn from each other, we can communicate with each other, and we both work to help each other. We have grown so close with each other that dogs are able to function within our society as a regular part of it, and even as valuable members of the community. Not only do we have search and rescue dogs, we have dogs to help the blind, the deaf, and even those with Autism can benefit greatly from having a dog. It's as if evolution has made us into step-siblings.
Dogs also have a gene to speed up the changes from one generation to the next. In other words, dogs have evolved to evolve.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Dogs and Corn are the best examples off the top of my head.

 

[Nietzsche]

Again, Lemaitre's primeval atom was despised for the exact same reason, rejected and mocked as 'Big Bang' by Hoyle for it's overt theistic implications. Nothing was considered more inherently supernatural as a specific beginning, creation event for time and space itself.

Lemaitre didn't ASSUME a supernatural answer, he simply allowed himself to be open to it by rejecting atheist dogma. I think that's the more scientific approach

Atheist dogma. I keep seeing this brought up by people, and yet if you look into the fields, there is tons of disagreement on the details of what happens. But you cannot test a supernatural hypothesis. So it isn't science. Science must be show-able, testable, falsifiable and able to predict outcomes.

Evolution can in theory be disproven. There is nothing saying that it cannot be. The fact of the matter however is that nothing else holds water. No other idea works. Germ theory, biology, so on and so simply wouldn't work at all if evolution were not the best explanation we currently have. And it is being further and further refined as our knowledge of both past and present biology increases.

Dogs and Corn are the best examples off the top of my head.

Whales & Manatees are my faveorite. Their fossil record is effectively complete, showing the complete transition between land-ungulates to sea-ungulates.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

. But you cannot test a supernatural hypothesis. So it isn't science. Science must be show-able, testable, falsifiable and able to predict outcomes.

unless we're talking about multiverses, string theory, M theory, etc right? Athiest dogma provides a waiver for scientific testability if the theory supports a preferred conclusion. If, like the primeval atom, it does not conform, THEN it has to be not only testable, but proven beyond all reasonable doubt before being accepted. A tiny bit of a double standard.

re. evolution, like Hoyle, no amount of evidence would change Dawkins' mind, because he explicitly despises the alternative.

 

[viole]

Again, Lemaitre's primeval atom was despised for the exact same reason, rejected and mocked as 'Big Bang' by Hoyle for it's overt theistic implications. Nothing was considered more inherently supernatural as a specific beginning, creation event for time and space itself.

Lemaitre didn't ASSUME a supernatural answer, he simply allowed himself to be open to it by rejecting atheist dogma. I think that's the more scientific approach

Why do you speak of atheist dogma if the BB is now considered orthodoxy?

What we can learn from that is that the scientific community cannot be accused of rejecting things that might have theological significance, otherwise the BB would not appear in all modern cosmolgy books. At the end is evidence that counts, not what F. Hoyle thinks.

Do you have other scientific theories in mind that, for some reason, resist better than Dr. Hoyle theory? If yes, what makes them so resilient, in your opinion, now that we know that science can change its mind when the necessary evidence is available?

Ciao

- viole

 

[jonathan180iq]

If, like the primeval atom, it does not conform, THEN it has to be not only testable, but proven beyond all reasonable doubt before being accepted. A tiny bit of a double standard.

There are cultural waves, certainly. And at the time, it was a laughable concept until it was proven.
Fact is, however, it was tested, proven, and accepted. So, the system got it right and it didn't take all that long.

re. evolution, like Hoyle, no amount of evidence would change Dawkins' mind, because he explicitly despises the alternative.

With someone as evidence oriented as Dawkins, I don't agree. If a box was suddenly unearthed with all of the missing bits data that religions claim to have, he would accept them, after they were studied and verified - just like any other naturalist. Disliking someone and being able to see when they have a point are two very different things.

 

[Nietzsche]

unless we're talking about multiverses, string theory, M theory, etc right? Athiest dogma provides a waiver for scientific testability if the theory supports a preferred conclusion. If, like the primeval atom, it does not conform, THEN it has to be not only testable, but proven beyond all reasonable doubt before being accepted. A tiny bit of a double standard.

There is a reason those things are classed as theoretical physics.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why do you speak of atheist dogma if the BB is now considered orthodoxy?

What we can learn from that is that the scientific community cannot be accused of rejecting things that might have theological significance, otherwise the BB would not appear in all modern cosmolgy books. At the end is evidence that counts, not what F. Hoyle thinks.

Do you have other scientific theories in mind that, for some reason, resist better than Dr. Hoyle theory? If yes, what makes them so resilient, in your opinion, now that we know that science can change its mind when the necessary evidence is available?

Ciao

- viole

it was a matter of science v atheism,

not all scientists are atheists, thank staunch skeptics of atheism like Lemaitre, Planck and Einstein for most of our scientific progress,
Pop scientists like Dawkins, Hawking, Krauss, Sagan, Tyson may do pretty well in book sales and TV ratings, but lag the inventor of the Chip Clip in terms of actual scientific contributions

 

[viole]

it was a matter of science v atheism,

not all scientists are atheists, thank staunch skeptics of atheism like Lemaitre, Planck and Einstein for most of our scientific progress,
Pop scientists like Dawkins, Hawking, Krauss, Sagan, Tyson may do pretty well in book sales and TV ratings, but lag the inventor of the Chip Clip in terms of actual scientific contributions

Then, I do not understand what your point is.

Science changes its mind when the evidence is there. The BB teory is proof of that.

And?

Ciao

- viole