EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Fatihah]

The proof is all around you, but you have let the weakness of your faith blind you.
Pity....

Response: Likewise.

 

[Fatihah]

Perhaps if we knew what Fatihah defines "proof" as?

What would 'proof' be to you?

wa:do

Response: Proof is exactly what the word means. Factual evidence that shows that something is true.

 

[JMorris]

Less like YmirGF but more discourteous; same goes for you :sarcastic.

Peace be upon you.

the willfully retarded deserve no courtesy or respect. it has nothing to do with your religion, as i've known muslims who can see the evidence for what it is, not simply deny it out of hand. but then again, they werent fundamentalists........

 

[painted wolf]

This is where I'm confused.... documented genetic change under lab conditions is factual evidence.... but to you it's not proof.
Documented physical change under natural conditions over the course of decades is factual evidence... but to you it's not proof.

I need a better definition of 'proof' from you. Apparently you have a different definition of "factual evidence" than the rest of us do.

wa:do

 

[Tristesse]

Response: There is no confusion at all. I agree with all of the above. A theory means exactly what it says. A theory can be applied to anything, not just science. A theory is an eplanation supported by factual evidence but the explanation or conclusion is not a fact. Scientific theory is a compound word. Therefore, a scientific theory is an explanation of scientific factual evidence. A crime investigator can have a theory in which he his explanation of the crime is based on factual evidence. That would be his investigation theory or crimimal theory. I can have a theory of something. Anyone can have a theory. But no matter how you use the word and what the theory is, it's still not a fact in the conclusion. It is an explanation supported by facts. That's why it's called a theory.

A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and either confirmed or denied. Facts are often contrasted with opinions and beliefs, statements which are held to be true, but are not amenable to pragmatic confirmation or denial. Thats a what a fact is, and ToE happens to fall into that category.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If breath was a precious commodity, and wasting it was unlawful, this thread would have been banned a long time ago.

 

[Autodidact]

[QUOTE Autodidact]
Yes, and because science has an excellent mechanism (replicability) to verify this data. I have now told you this ten times.(End quote)

Response: Then this would be the 11th time in which I've said that ToE requires a person seeing a species evolve into another which doesn't happen.

There's the statement. Where's the proof?

And if it does, you can just deny it, despite the strong mechanism for eliminating incorrect observations. Nifty that.

(/Quote Autodidact)
Yup.(End Quote)

Response: Nope.

(Quote Autodidact)
Not a scientist. All the scientists.(End quote)

Response: There's the statement. Where's the proof?

Evidence. Not proof. Evidence.

Can I please have $1 for every time I've said that?

 

[Autodidact]

Again, I leave it to our readers to determine our respective honesty and comprehension. Would you like me to poll the thread?

Response: Another example of your own vanity.[/quote]

So I take it that no, you would rather not learn the facts in this, as in so many other matters? That's what I figured.

 

[Fatihah]

[QUOTE Odion]Even the sub-breeds of dog and cat?
So when God created the Earth, he created the, dachshund, great dane, chihuahua, the Tibetan mastiff, the bulldog, rottweiler?(End quote)

Response: Yes.

(Quote Odion)
Um. Not quite... Scientists aren't that naïve to go "oooh, it must be evolution!", it's from sampling, cross-comparison, etc.(End Quote)

Response: Not all the time, as ToE cleary shows.

(Quote Odion)
Ah, sorry, I meant do you believe that all of the animals in creation just went "poof" into existence, dachshund and mastiff and all, all suddenly appeared at once?(End quote)

Response: I don't know what you mean by all at once. In the qur'an we read:

"Our word concernig a thing, when We will it, it is ony that We say to it, 'Be', and it is." Ch.16:40

"And Allah has created every animal from water. Of them are (some) that go upon their bellies, and of them are (some) that go upon two feet, and among them are (some) that go upon four. Allah creates what He pleases. Surely Allah has the power to do all that he pleases." Ch.24:45

 

[Autodidact]

Response: Proof is exactly what the word means. Factual evidence that shows that something is true.

Ah, I see. Maybe English is not your native language. In scientific terms, proof would be an absolute, not capable of being changed, demonstration, such as we have in mathematics. Science is not based on proof as is mathematics. Science is about evidence. The distinction is that evidence is empirical, it adds up, and can become conclusive, but can never reach mathematical, formal, logical certainty. There's always at least a theoretical possibility that could change the outcome.

For example, every scientist who has ever examined the London mosquito has observed that it meets the scientific definition of a new species. Further, they open their results to independent verification, so that if you doubt them, you can check yourself. That's very strong evidence. But there's a theoretical possibility that, for some odd reason, they're all in on some bizarre conspiracy, and have concocted a fantastic lie, and that Fatihah is going to travel to London to uncover it. Or maybe a powerful extraterrestrial force is controlling all of their brains, and all of the brains of everyone who sees this mosquito. The possibility of either of these less than .01%, but because it exists, we do not talk about proof in science. We talk about...(wait for it)...

evidence.

 

[JMorris]

If breath was a precious commodity, and wasting it was unlawful, this thread would have been banned a long time ago.

it probably should be. but there are already 2 or 3 more for crazy people to go to and say "nonononononononononono" in.

 

[Breathe]

Response: Yes.

I'm pretty sure they didn't, considering they are from breeding specific qualities, and for example, the dachshund is supposed to be as recent as the 1700s.

If the dachshund were for example, from the beginning of time, how would you explain the difference in skin tone between humans in Africa and in Europe, and in the Middle East and China, for example - all come from one man according to Islam, so why are there different skin tones?

Response: Not all the time, as ToE cleary shows.

Which one do you think makes more sense though? God using evolution, bringing about slow change, or suddenly saying "BE!" and everything appears?

 

[Fatihah]

This is where I'm confused.... documented genetic change under lab conditions is factual evidence.... but to you it's not proof.
Documented physical change under natural conditions over the course of decades is factual evidence... but to you it's not proof.

I need a better definition of 'proof' from you. Apparently you have a different definition of "factual evidence" than the rest of us do.

wa:do

Response: There's only one definition. And a species evolving into another has never happened, nor has anyone seen it happen. So the evidence does not prove that such things happened.

 

[Fatihah]

A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and either confirmed or denied. Facts are often contrasted with opinions and beliefs, statements which are held to be true, but are not amenable to pragmatic confirmation or denial. Thats a what a fact is, and ToE happens to fall into that category.

Response: Not when the evidence does not prove the conclusion, which is the case for ToE.

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., just to use a single well-known example, the Golden Retriever. Are you saying that this breed of dog was independently created whole and separate in ancient times directly by Allah speaking it, and it was so?

 

[Breathe]

Apparently.

 

[Fatihah]

Ah, I see. Maybe English is not your native language. In scientific terms, proof would be an absolute, not capable of being changed, demonstration, such as we have in mathematics. Science is not based on proof as is mathematics. Science is about evidence. The distinction is that evidence is empirical, it adds up, and can become conclusive, but can never reach mathematical, formal, logical certainty. There's always at least a theoretical possibility that could change the outcome.

For example, every scientist who has ever examined the London mosquito has observed that it meets the scientific definition of a new species. Further, they open their results to independent verification, so that if you doubt them, you can check yourself. That's very strong evidence. But there's a theoretical possibility that, for some odd reason, they're all in on some bizarre conspiracy, and have concocted a fantastic lie, and that Fatihah is going to travel to London to uncover it. Or maybe a powerful extraterrestrial force is controlling all of their brains, and all of the brains of everyone who sees this mosquito. The possibility of either of these less than .01%, but because it exists, we do not talk about proof in science. We talk about...(wait for it)...

evidence.

Response: Science is about proof. You wouldn't take medicine unless it was proven scientifically to be a cure. Nor is it legal for scientist or doctors to prescribe otherwise.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Response: Science is about proof.

No, it is not.

 

[painted wolf]

There's only one definition. And a species evolving into another has never happened, nor has anyone seen it happen. So the evidence does not prove that such things happened.

Prove those people were lying.
Prove all those publications are false. Prove that the factual evidence is wrong!
You are making bold statements of what is and isn't proof but you are offering none yourself.

You are bending and twisting like a sheet in the wind... anything you don't accept is not 'proof' yet you refuse to say what you will accept as 'proof'...

So where is your 'proof'?

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Response: Science is about proof. You wouldn't take medicine unless it was proven scientifically to be a cure. Nor is it legal for scientist or doctors to prescribe otherwise.

As if you would know.

Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

from here.

Myth 5: Science and its Methods Provide Absolute Proof

The general success of the scientific endeavor suggests that its products must be valid. However, a hallmark of scientific knowledge is that it is subject to revision when new information is presented. Tentativeness is one of the points that differentiates science from other forms of knowledge. Accumulated evidence can provide support, validation and substantiation for a law or theory, but will never prove those laws and theories to be true. This idea has been addressed by Homer and Rubba (1978) and Lopnshinsky (1993).

from here.

Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them.

from here.

In fact, hypotheses can never be proven to be absolutely "true" is the sense that a theorem in geometry can. The most we can say is that there is a high probability that the hypothesis provides a valid explanation of the phenomenon being studied. Hypotheses that are supported by many observations come to be called theories.

from here.

If a succession of tests fails to show a hypothesis is wrong, at some point we begin to accept an explanation (hypothesis) as true. Even though the hypothesis hasn’t been proven, there comes a point when sufficient evidence convinces us the hypothesis is correct. Continued refusal becomes obstinacy, ignoring evidence in favor of what ‘feels right’.

from here.

Contrary to common belief, scientific hypotheses, theories, and laws can never be absolutely "proven." Scientific knowledge, including "facts," theories, and laws, is tentative and subject to change. Scientific claims change as new evidence, made possible through advances in theory and technology, is brought to bear on existing theories or laws, or as old evidence is reexamined in the light of new theoretical advances or shifts in the directions of established research programs.

from here.