Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

Science works, because it is a rigorous, repeatable methodology to understand the natural world using evidence, logic and reason. Evidence is obtained through experiment, but experiment is not the only means to obtain evidence.

Science works, because it produces consistent results that can be seen, experienced, used and repeated.

Science works, because the theories, tests, results and conclusions are repeatedly challenged.

Science works, because those practicing science, learn from their findings and their mistakes.

The ultimate expression of science are models/theories that explain the evidence.

The problem with this is that according to scientists, mankind has been around for quite a while longer than the 5-6000 years stated in the Bible. And it also makes sense that they didn't have sewing machines back then. Mankind however during the past few hundred years has progressed with things like x-rays, electricity and so forth. Pretty quickly. The explanation that 30,000 or so years ago men's brains and lifestyles just couldn't figure things out or didn't need to and so history wasn't written way back then also doesn't add up to me. Because it makes more sense that Adam was made specially by God more like 5000+ years ago.

 

[YoursTrue]

Scientific experiments are not some sort of magic ritual that imbues science with some immaterial essence of revealed truth.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it see. It is so obvious, it screams.

Horses need water. According to the bible, water came first. Before horses. And fish.

 

[John53]

Someone here said it. I don't have time to go back and look for it, sorry. If I come across it again I will let you know.

So maybe one person said it and that's what you feel everyone thinks despite everyone else telling you there is strong evidence to support ToE but there is no proof.

 

[John53]

Horses need water. According to the bible, water came first. Before horses. And fish.

What does that even mean?

Maybe I shouldn't be reading this first thing after a nap.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Someone here said it. I don't have time to go back and look for it, sorry. If I come across it again I will let you know.

You are probably mistaken. It is tested and confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt. But that does not mean that testing will ever stop. Scientists are always testing old ideas. Very often when scientists have new ideas they test the old ideas from scratch. You probably objected to the fact that evolution is "proven beyond a reasonable doubt".

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem with this is that according to scientists, mankind has been around for quite a while longer than the 5-6000 years stated in the Bible. And it also makes sense that they didn't have sewing machines back then. Mankind however during the past few hundred years has progressed with things like x-rays, electricity and so forth. Pretty quickly. The explanation that 30,000 or so years ago men's brains and lifestyles just couldn't figure things out or didn't need to and so history wasn't written way back then also doesn't add up to me. Because it makes more sense that Adam was made specially by God more like 5000+ years ago.

Why does it make "more sense"? You do not just get to make such claims.

What led to the rapid change that we can observe was civilization and then writing. One cannot preserve complex knowledge by just word of mouth. It takes more than that. Verbal knowledge is lost knowledge. Have you ever played "telephone"? It is a child's game where a child is given a slip of paper with a short message on it. That child passes it on by whispering in the ear of another and that child passes it on etc.. Until the whole class had had a turn. By the time it gets through a class of fifteen or more it has changed beyond recognition. The game teaches the necessity of writing.

It took quite a bit for civilization t o form. Why do you think that we should have advanced before civilization was even ta thing?

 

[blü 2]

Science works because of experiment. Not because of evidence and logic and certainly not inductive reasoning.

Only prediction can demonstrate true understanding.

You truly, sadly, deeply don't understand how science works, do you. You want magic instead, it seems.

Your inability to see what you will not see is blinding.

You haven't pointed to anything I will not see. You appear to be using that phrase to imply that the definitions you're unable to provide are in some magical way self-evident. I assure you they are not.

 

[gnostic]

But change in species results from behavior/ consciousness at bottlenecks.

If that were true, then no conscious animals would have died out in the K-Pg extinction event...

...but about 75% of all species (animals & plants) did die out.

Consciousness played no part in those species that did survive.

K-Pg wasn’t an exception. There were even greater losses occurring before the K-Pg, such as during the Permian-Triassic (P-Tr) extinction event about 252 million years ago, known as the “Great Dying”.

What happened in P-Tr event took even longer to recover because 96% of all marine life and around 70% of terrestrial life were gone. Meanwhile, land plants were largely unaffected by the mass extinction.

If you seriously believe that consciousness are what cause species changing, then why so much animals with consciousness were gone, while plants that never conscious, didn't become extinct during either P-Tr or K-Pg?​

 

[gnostic]

Of course empiricism is something. But at its root science is just observation and experiment. "Empiricism" is an abstraction that means different things to different people. Essentially it is evidence and logic which is observation and experiment. "Induction" has many meanings as well but it is essentially extrapolation or interpolation of taxonomies or other abstractions.

You are not making sense, because you don't understand Empiricism too.

Why do you insist on talking about things that you are UTTERLY CLUELESS as to what they mean?

Empiricism is ALL ABOUT OBSERVATIONS, which are EVIDENCE, EXPERIMENTS & DATA.

The more evidence or experiments you have, the more scientists are able to determine if the hypothesis or theory is

A) verified and probable​

​

B) refuted and improbable​

Empiricism can only occur if there are SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to verify the hypothesis/theory. Empiricism is all about verification.

You cannot have empiricism without observational evidence or observational experiment.

You really are slow in the uptake, cladking?

 

[Valjean]

The problem with this is that according to scientists, mankind has been around for quite a while longer than the 5-6000 years stated in the Bible. And it also makes sense that they didn't have sewing machines back then. Mankind however during the past few hundred years has progressed with things like x-rays, electricity and so forth. Pretty quickly. The explanation that 30,000 or so years ago men's brains and lifestyles just couldn't figure things out or didn't need to and so history wasn't written way back then also doesn't add up to me. Because it makes more sense that Adam was made specially by God more like 5000+ years ago.

Where does the Bible state the Earth's age? Why do you find Ussher's "calculation" to be more reliable than the well evidenced scientific calculation?
People invent/adopt what's useful and technologically feasible. Hunter-gatherers didn't have sewing machines or electricity, for obvious reasons.
People often don't invent what seems obvious, once invented; like alphabets, wheels on suitcases, or food wrapped in bread. We lived for thousands of years without these, despite our large brains. Once invented, though, they took off like diversity after the Cambrian explosion.
Why does a God or magic make more sense than what's extensively and consiliently evidenced? It's obviously a simpler and more comforting idea for you, but your belief is based on emotion, not sense.

 

[Valjean]

Horses need water. According to the bible, water came first. Before horses. And fish.

The horse is you, YT.

 

[Valjean]

Some people (I have read this) actually believe that evolution is a tested theory. (It is? Now if something is tested BEYOND QUESTION as to fitting in with a theory, would you call that proof that -- the theory is true in the absolute, final sense? Maybe some will.

Someone here said it. I don't have time to go back and look for it, sorry. If I come across it again I will let you know.

It is evidenced and tested to the point that disbelief would be obtuse in the extreme, but, as we've explained countless times, nothing in science is beyond question, or proven.

 

[Valjean]

What does that even mean?

Maybe I shouldn't be reading this first thing after a nap.

She has a weak grasp of analogies and proverbs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Where does the Bible state the Earth's age? Why do you find Ussher's "calculation" to be more reliable than the well evidenced scientific calculation?
People invent/adopt what's useful and technologically feasible. Hunter-gatherers didn't have sewing machines or electricity, for obvious reasons.
People often don't invent what seems obvious, once invented; like alphabets, wheels on suitcases, or food wrapped in bread. We lived for thousands of years without these, despite our large brains. Once invented, though, they took off like diversity after the Cambrian explosion.
Why does a God or magic make more sense than what's extensively and consiliently evidenced? It's obviously a simpler and more comforting idea for you, but your belief is based on emotion, not sense.

The Bible doesn't state an age of creation. Ussher, along with several others, did some calculations, but I don't know why his are more popular or why someone would claim they are in the Bible. It is a window to how someone trying to force a particular ideology comes to think of things they turn to for support. How something told to them around the campfire comes to be a fact for them, when it is not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What does that even mean?

Maybe I shouldn't be reading this first thing after a nap.

I have difficulty following sentences that leap from one point to another, both points from within and points from without, with nary a breath of explanation between connecting the points. It seems a cauldron of thoughts strung together by randomly grasping them and sticking them in the same prison sentence together.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What does that even mean?

Maybe I shouldn't be reading this first thing after a nap.

Horses are not still fish?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science is based on empiricism ─ do you know what empiricism is? ─ and induction ─ since you clearly don't know what induction is, it means that if your experiment gives a consistent repeatable result then it's legitimate to generalize your result unless and until you strike a counterexample.


...

Not according to Popper.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why does it make "more sense"? You do not just get to make such claims.

What led to the rapid change that we can observe was civilization and then writing. One cannot preserve complex knowledge by just word of mouth. It takes more than that. Verbal knowledge is lost knowledge. Have you ever played "telephone"? It is a child's game where a child is given a slip of paper with a short message on it. That child passes it on by whispering in the ear of another and that child passes it on etc.. Until the whole class had had a turn. By the time it gets through a class of fifteen or more it has changed beyond recognition. The game teaches the necessity of writing.

It took quite a bit for civilization t o form. Why do you think that we should have advanced before civilization was even ta thing?

Apparently, what does make sense is that the offspring of Adam and Eve already had the ideas and concepts of civilization in mind from the womb and humans didn't need to form groups and learn, slowly developing (evolving) into communities. All knowledge and language and concepts leading to sewing machines popped into existence suddenly like magic.

It doesn't make sense to me considering the evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You truly, sadly, deeply don't understand how science works, do you. You want magic instead, it seems.

You haven't pointed to anything I will not see. You appear to be using that phrase to imply that the definitions you're unable to provide are in some magical way self-evident. I assure you they are not.

I've noticed that mantras are often turned to when a person is offered or confronted with things that they don't seem to understand and that challenge their pre-conceived views. Offered like incantations to wish away thorny questions and points.

Fish are still fish, one funeral at a time, stinky-footed bumpkins, Denis Noble says, etc.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've noticed that mantras are often turned to when a person is offered or confronted with things that they don't seem to understand and that challenge their pre-conceived views. Offered like incantations to wish away thorny questions and points.

Fish are still fish, one funeral at a time, stinky-footed bumpkins, Denis Noble says, etc.

Well, one that some people often use is that objectivity is better than subjectivity. The problem is that it is subjective and without evidence and not science. And that one can be observed in some non-religious people.