Do you think we should take such seriously? Or is the *inference* that animals reproduced in the past in ways similar to the ways they do now mostly justified?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
For Evolutionists and a Few Open Minded Creationists
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Do you think we should take such seriously? Or is the *inference* that animals reproduced in the past in ways similar to the ways they do now mostly justified?
exchemist
Veteran Member
This, folks, is an example of the "Grand, Trampling Exit." The effort to synthesis an appropriate level of indignation and victimhood is almost palpable. Oh well, so be it.Yes, I find on these forum - the only one I have ever witnessed it on - there are people here who make long posts, and read other long posts, but when you put information in it they don't like to look at, because it's information they can't argue against, because it comes directly from credible sources, and doesn't support their argument.
What a way to debate...
Since you hate to read facts, It won't make sense for me to bother ever again wasting my time posting them to you. I'll do that with every person I meet from now on with your attitude. You make the forth person I have met here who did the same thing.
Sad really for a debate forum - my first experience.
Maybe RF should implement as a rule what some forums have, where "posting statements as fact without backing up those statements with credible sources are not required to be taken seriously."
Archaeopteryx has flight feathers, like some dinosaur also, and flightless birds. It is debated whether Archaeopteryx was capable of flight.
It has a beak like some dinosaur as well - some of which interestingly were toothless.
Some bird have "teeth". That doesn't rule out the possibility that some ancient birds had teeth. An Archaeopteryx was found to have rounded teeth, and differently spaced. Variety, they say, is the spice of life.
Other animals have claws on their forelimbs, also found in nature today.
You are right. It's not rocket science at all, and if you did not take this attitude, you would have seen my further response to the fact that what we observe today doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that your argument don't hold water.
You would also have seen that I welcomed discussing the features of Tiktaalik. I was really looking forward to that, but now that's out the window.
Actually I'm not sure you are interested in debating. If you were, your attitude would not be such, that you don't want to read my post, and adamantly state you "haven't read it", yet call it guff.
How does that work?
I never read a book, but I call it garbage.
That tells me you are just interested in what you believe, and want to push, because you have convinced yourself that what you believe is true, and anything opposed to it is garbage.
There is more to it, and it is the same I observed with a few others - the tactic of dismissing a post, to avoid answering a question - an excuse to sidestep a question.
Have a wonderful day.
nPeace
Veteran Member
I think science is a study, and that's what it is supposed to do.
There is no need to infer what is observed as a fact, and thus considered a law. We all observe reproduction, why do we need to infer that it is how life is produced according to their kind?
Well, we don't actually observe that it happened in the past, do we? We use the information we have in the present and assume the same processes are active in the past, right?
This is *precisely* what we do when we use radioactive dating to see how old some rock is. It is *precisely* the same as what we do when we see that the collection of species that exist at any one time is different than those that existed before and after. It is *precisely* why we can infer that those differences are because the earlier species changed into the later species over that time period. It is *precisely* the same process when we infer that these changes happen by accumulation of small changes (which we can see happening in species today).
It is exactly this type of 'inference' that so many creationists object to: we use what we know of physics, chemistry, and biology today to deduce what happened in the past.
Audie
Veteran Member
That whole "fact-infer-law" thing was so confused that after
thinking about it, I gave up attempting a reply.
Creationists sure do earn their rep.
nPeace
Veteran Member
I don't have a problem with inference, it is necessary at times. Assumption is a different story. Only, we don't assume, or believe that inference makes something a fact. It doesn't. Do you believe otherwise?
Since *all* observation is ultimately dependent on inference, any separation between the two is going to be very subtle. The laws we apply are based on inference.
it is always an *assumption* that the laws in the past are similar to the laws now. It is always an *assumption* that our observations and the inferred laws apply and thereby allow us to infer what happened in the past.
If there is any way to determine 'facts' about the past, it is from inference.
Now, another aspect of this is the notion of error bars. We never have perfect measurements of anything. That is simply an aspect of reality. But that means that *all* measurements have some uncertainties in them. But there is a HUGE difference between an uncertainty of 10% and an uncertainty of .001%. The latter allows us to make more conclusions that are *facts*, and allows us to eliminate more falsehoods than the former. In both cases, there are aspects that are inferred, but the reliability of the latter is much greater.
Do you agree?
nPeace
Veteran Member
I agree that inference does not make something a fact, if that's what you mean.
if you have something else in mind, you'll have to elaborate a bit more by explaining what is a fact, or what "kind of fact" you have in mind.
nPeace
Veteran Member
That last part....
...is totally and absolutely, to the max... not true.
Here is an opportunity for you to show that what you say there is a fact... with a reference - not just "I say so".
exchemist
Veteran Member
What? Another one?
But thanks, that would explain why my simple question resulted in two pages of tedious-looking sophistry and prevarication, instead of a straight answer.
Like evolution abiogenesis is a science and not an assumption of any belief, atheist, agnostic, theist nor any other belief system. As a Theist I consider abiogenesis simply the physical process of how inorganic chemicals became life, and not whether God Created life or it came about naturally. Science is science and neutral to whether God exists or not.
Let me turn this around. Give me *one* fact about the real world that isn't a result of inference. If, as you say, what I said is absolutely not true, this should be easy.
The point is that *all* we know about the real world is through our senses. That means we are *always* inferring from our senses to what is happening in the real world. Even to conclude that you see a desk is an inference from your visual sensation to the statement that there is a desk there.
nPeace
Veteran Member
I specifically said, you need to
You haven't done so.
If you prove your claim then I have nothing to argue.
I gave the reasons why it is the case. If you think I am wrong, all you have to do is give a *single* example. if you can do so, I will be shown to be wrong.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
It's weird. The Jehovah's Witnesses here will tell you all about how their faith mandates rejection of evolution, and how that mandate is enforced in the church through harsh treatment including banishment and complete shunning of any "evolutionists".What? Another one?
But thanks, that would explain why my simple question resulted in two pages of tedious-looking sophistry and prevarication, instead of a straight answer.
But right after that, they insist that being a Jehovah's Witness is not any sort of factor in how they approach evolution.
It's that second part that baffles me. Are they ashamed of their faith? Are they embarrassed to admit that their faith influences their beliefs about science? Fundamentalist Christians from other denominations don't seem to have too much of a problem talking about the role their beliefs play in all this; it's only with Witnesses that we get complete denial of that.
Like I said....it's weird.
nPeace
Veteran Member
LOL. The guys on these forums really are something... else.
A Brief Explanation About Direct Evidence Along With Examples
[Direct evidence] should directly prove or disprove a fact without making any assumption or inference. If it does resort to assumption or inference, then it will be circumstantial evidence. In other words, it should be based on facts, not coincidences. Secondly, it should be based on personal knowledge or observation, not hearsay.
The basic difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is that, the latter relies on inference or assumption. In fact, circumstantial evidence almost always has more than one explanation.
Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact - such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly - i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
Direct Evidence: Definition, Law & Examples
All you rightly agreed "inference does not guarantee a fact",
but your claim that "all facts are produced by inference" is false.
Game Over/
LOL. The guys on these forums really are something... else.
A Brief Explanation About Direct Evidence Along With Examples
[Direct evidence] should directly prove or disprove a fact without making any assumption or inference. If it does resort to assumption or inference, then it will be circumstantial evidence. In other words, it should be based on facts, not coincidences. Secondly, it should be based on personal knowledge or observation, not hearsay.
The basic difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is that, the latter relies on inference or assumption. In fact, circumstantial evidence almost always has more than one explanation.
Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact - such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly - i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
Direct Evidence: Definition, Law & Examples
All you rightly agreed "inference does not guarantee a fact",
but your claim that "all facts are produced by inference" is false.
Game Over/
Can you give a *single* example of a truth established by direct evidence? Even personal observation relies on inference.
Your perpetuating a circular hamster wheel argument without a remote understanding science and how Methodological Naturalism in reality works, all because of 'Blind Faith' in a fundamentalist Creationist agenda where there is absolutely no objective verifiable evidence to support.
The evidence for evolution is represented by objective verifiable facts, that are used to propose and falsify hypothesis, and make predictions involving the evolution and abiogenesis of life, which includes the certainity that the earth, life and the universe is billions of years old. The process is the same as with all the sciences.
As fair as being qualified, 97%+ ALL scientists (actual scientists NOT engineers and computer programmers) support the Science of evolution.
Your responses in the thread on the evolution of birds reflected what we have is a 'failure to communicate' in competent science.
Last edited: