How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?

[Pogo]

Again, you really do not "know" that water dwelling fish evolved to be amphibians. You interpret certain fossils and possibly creatures that way, but that is all. There is nothing beyond that to show that fish "evolved" to become amphibians. It's like taking two old movies with similar story lines and then declaring without really knowing that they must have had the same director, even though no one really has the credentials. And even the credentials could be misleading. That is why in some court cases analysts are brought in to determine the truthfulness of what is brought forth as evidence. And sadly sometimes the analysts are wrong and people are wrongfully judged based on the evidence proposed by the lawyers.

This from the reader of an ancient book of historical fantasy fiction that mentions a few events and places as historical fiction does and contains numerous fantastic events as fantasy fiction does who believes that over a academic study of the history of life on earth that is only confirmed and advanced by new discoveries.
You have every right to believe your fantasy fiction, but please stop denying that the alternative has far more connections to reality and doesn't require magical input.
Your pretenses of understanding and finding "problems" only show ignorance or disingenuity.
It is rather a stretch too far to denigrate evolution by calling it a story and then propose yours as a better alternative explanation of reality.,

 

[gnostic]

Well, we have been here before.
Science is a human behaviour and it can be observed that different humans understand what is science differently.
In effect while some methods in at least one version of science is in effect about the objective in part, it doesn't mean that it is objective what science is as a method.
So yes, I understand your version of science.

But for the bold one, I can't answer unless you understand that science as a human behaviour is not objective as such, but rather at least one version uses objectivity in effect.

You keep saying something (or is “someone”?) is being “bold”…your meanings are not clear. I don’t know what you mean by this.

Can you give a real-live example of this?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You keep saying something (or is “someone”?) is being “bold”…your meanings are not clear. I don’t know what you mean by this.

Can you give a real-live example of this?

Go back and find your qouted text in my answer. I made a part of your text in bold.

 

[gnostic]

Not everyone's concept of "evidence" is such that it proves the point. A person accused of murder or another crime can be wrongfully convicted because of the way the "evidence" is presented and thought of by the jury.

murder trial isn’t science, YoursTrue.

The presiding judge isn’t a scientist. The lawyers on both sides are not scientists. The members of the jury, are not expected to have knowledge or experiences to know or understand science.

It like you trying to compare an organ to a sport car. Your example and the comparison are stupid, and not relevant in this thread.

What you are talking about isn’t the science, it is the lawyer who has the most persuasive argument in the trial.

 

[gnostic]

Go back and find your qouted text in my answer. I made a part of your text in bold.

you are not being helpful.

its late, and I should be asleep right now, I am not going to tread through past posts.

so, please. Explain, clarify what you mean, and if possible, give a realistic example.

After this post, I am putting away my iPad.

 

[wellwisher]

You do not realize that today's medicine has well defined protocol management procedures and an understanding of the psychology involved to understand the addictions and misuse of medications, and can clear greatly reduce the problem in medicine today. I have to deal with theses issues every day in my real lafe relationship to patients and rely on communication with doctors and nurses to resolve the issues,

Psychology is called soft science since it makes use of internal data from humans. We all know internal motivation can and will alter output behavior; body language, to create an external data illusion; con job. We all can empathize to a degree, but nobody knows every con artist trick. It would be easier if we could read their minds to get direct data. Casino math used by all the life science, uses fuzzy dice data which is at least partially subjective, and may not always apply. People are different from inanimate objects and require some additional tools and assumptions.

The most important tool of science is consciousness. How do you know if your consciousness is calibrated when you do science? If I have a scale, and I use it to measure, but I do not know how to calibrate it to is it is calibrated, my world view; data, can be shifted and I may not know it. Consciousness is not well known enough understood to make a successful calibration, unaffected by internal bias. That takes work and that work is not required in science. One just has to go along with the consensus premises, which also appeared without the requirement of calibration. Most theory expires with time and very few stand the test of time.

If science, like evolution, has all the answers, why is it still looking and employing more people than ever? If we complete a construction project; dogma, all the workers go home or start another project, and not hang around the finished project, even adding more bodies while claiming this is done so do not ask questions. There is an internal contradiction due to bad calibration. The more you know the less you realize you know. The newbies will learn in time.

Science is also there, as much for the good paying jobs, as defining the truth of nature. The bureaucracy of science will maintain obsolete theory, to maintain jobs, since any radial change can impact the lives of working people. It can also impact prestige and who sits at the big table. For example, dark matter and dark energy have never been seen in the lab to know if they are real. The Standard theory is on life-support and this is helping keep it alive. However, the unverifiable existence violates the cardinal rule of needing verification before paying homage. However, they are people and jobs on the line and this keeps the ball rolling. Internal is important to the big picture.

It is like red tape in Government is a way to justify too many union workers for the job. As time goes on this make work fact is forgotten, and the red tape fix gains more prominence and becomes a dogma you cannot tamper with.

Our human existence has two sides. We exist in material reality as a biological units that others can see and verify. We also exist behind our own eyes and senses, in private, based on how reality impacts us as individuals. We can be optimistic or pessimistic, with the same externally verifiable material existence. Most science does not address both, but both always exist together and can impact science.

We have a good handle on external reality, but internal reality is far less known. It may be time to balance this out by making internal data the subject of direct observation. We all carry that lab on our shoulders; brain and consciousness and internal feedback.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

you are not being helpful.

its late, and I should be asleep right now, I am not going to tread through past posts.

so, please. Explain, clarify what you mean, and if possible, give a realistic example.

After this post, I am putting away my iPad.

This is your text: "if evidence and experiments are of no use to testing existing theories or new hypotheses, then what alternative methodology that you would suggest scientists should use?"
Behind that is that it is objective in effect. But sometimes you can't do all of life objectively and thus there is a version of science that deals with the subjective as subjective.
We have been here before and I will state it as simple as I can.
I can find text online not written by me about science as different from how you understand it. If you don't want to go there, say so.

 

[Sargonski]

When I talk about gods, I'm not making any claims as much as I am responding to claims about gods.
I'm not the one who starts that conversation.

Someone first needs to claim a god exists before I can disbelieve that claim.
So the onus is on them. Obviously.


If there were no people claiming gods exist, I wouldn't even know about any gods to talk about.



"basic logic 101", ey?

Tell me, do you wake up in the morning saying out of the blue that you don't believe in gooblydockbloblo?
Or do you first require someone to claim there is such a thing as gooblydockbloblo BEFORE you can disbelieve such a thing exists?

So who's job is it to define what gooblydockbloblo is? Yours? Or the person who FIRST claims there is such a thing?
Without someone claiming there is such a thing, would you even bother talking about it or evaluating whether or not you believe it to be real?



Already answer this.

Violation / suspension of natural law. Things that are impossible which happen anyway.
And no, a flying plane or helicopter is not impossible nor does it violate or suspend any natural law.

Additionally, I don't "hate" gods. I don't believe gods to be real. This is not the same thing.
I don't hate "dart vader" either. I might if I would believe him to be real though, but I don't. I don't see much sense in "hating" what I consider to be fictional / mythological characters.

You jumped into a conversation .. the subject of which was a claim made by an Atheist .. in addressing the subject of God ~ Godly powers .. stating a disbelief in Magic.

and so I asked how they are defining God .. more specifically "Godly powers" .. "Magic"

You come along and say ?? "When I talk about Gods I am not making any claims about them" ????? other than the claim they do not exist.

Ahhhhhh Euuuuuurrrrreeeeeeka !!! s Right ! now you understand the Logic Basic 100 ? ey ! heh heh ..

"Except to respond to claims about God" -- Yes ... !! Exactly .. Exactly what I am doing .. responding to a claim about God .. that such Godly Powers do not exist. and so have to ask .. exactly what are we claiming to be Godly Powers .. "Magic" .. as in what would it take for some entity "HeyZeus" for example ... to sit down beside you and convince you that they have a divine spark within them .. little piece of the All spark ...

Now .. you wish to talk about some other claims about God .. and you respond in disbelief of that God ... do you not need to know what is being asserted about that God .. for you to have something yot disbelieve ? ..

Now .. while I am enthralled with these other conversations making various claims about God -- in this conversation .. it is your definition of God that is under discussion .. should you take the position of the Atheist .. and tell us what it would this entity have to do to convince you of Godly powers .. the bare minimum .. let us not get into the God of Everything Existentialist fallacy. and then answer the same question being a paleolithinc farmer in 4000 BC .. what they might look to as "Godly powers" .

 

[Sargonski]

This is the accepted universally academic norm in science world wide.

Your foggy vague philosophical ;beliefs are problematic when it comes to science and the real world.

Please respond coherently without the funny faces

What philosophical beliefs are problematic shunyD ? are you building another strawman .. give one problematic belief I have .. in relation to universally accepted norms in science .. .. you know .. me being the "Scientist" in the room .. you .. yeah .. Not the scientist in the room

Tell me about this problematic Philosophical beief and this universally accepted science norm being violated.

 

[YoursTrue]

murder trial isn’t science, YoursTrue.

The presiding judge isn’t a scientist. The lawyers on both sides are not scientists. The members of the jury, are not expected to have knowledge or experiences to know or understand science.

It like you trying to compare an organ to a sport car. Your example and the comparison are stupid, and not relevant in this thread.

What you are talking about isn’t the science, it is the lawyer who has the most persuasive argument in the trial.

Scientists analyze what is said to be evidence sometimes in a trial.

 

[Astrophile]

Job 26:7 ESV…
Job 26 ESV
“He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.”

Job 26:7 - Job: Who Can Understand God's Majesty?

He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth upon nothing.

biblehub.com

This is from no “ancient cultural perspective.”

Back then, such an expressed view would have been considered ignorant, at the very least.

But today we know it’s scientifically accurate!

This verse is similar to the cosmology of the Greek philosopher Anaximander (ca. 610-540 BC), who said that the Earth was suspended in space because there was nowhere for it to fall to. However, we now know that this is not scientifically accurate. The Earth is not suspended in space; it is in orbit around the Sun.

 

[Astrophile]

Again, you really do not "know" that water dwelling fish evolved to be amphibians. You interpret certain fossils and possibly creatures that way, but that is all. There is nothing beyond that to show that fish "evolved" to become amphibians. It's like taking two old movies with similar story lines and then declaring without really knowing that they must have had the same director, even though no one really has the credentials. And even the credentials could be misleading. That is why in some court cases analysts are brought in to determine the truthfulness of what is brought forth as evidence. And sadly sometimes the analysts are wrong and people are wrongfully judged based on the evidence proposed by the lawyers.

Tetrapods (or amphibians if you prefer) first appear in the fossil record in middle or late Devonian rocks. However, the first Devonian tetrapods must have been descended from ancestors that lived in earlier Devonian time, and from even earlier ancestors that lived during the Silurian, Ordovician and Cambrian periods. The most likely ancestors of middle or late Devonian tetrapods should be the early Devonian non-tetrapods that most resemble the tetrapods, namely various types of lobe-finned fishes.

Unless you believe in spontaneous generation, or unless you can point to early Devonian non-tetrapods that resemble tetrapods more than lobe-finned fishes do, I do not see how you can evade this argument.

 

[YoursTrue]

This verse is similar to the cosmology of the Greek philosopher Anaximander (ca. 610-540 BC), who said that the Earth was suspended in space because there was nowhere for it to fall to. However, we now know that this is not scientifically accurate. The Earth is not suspended in space; it is in orbit around the Sun.

Realistically it hangs on nothing., regardless of its orbiting.

 

[YoursTrue]

Tetrapods (or amphibians if you prefer) first appear in the fossil record in middle or late Devonian rocks. However, the first Devonian tetrapods must have been descended from ancestors that lived in earlier Devonian time, and from even earlier ancestors that lived during the Silurian, Ordovician and Cambrian periods. The most likely ancestors of middle or late Devonian tetrapods should be the early Devonian non-tetrapods that most resemble the tetrapods, namely various types of lobe-finned fishes.

Unless you believe in spontaneous generation, or unless you can point to early Devonian non-tetrapods that resemble tetrapods more than lobe-finned fishes do, I do not see how you can evade this argument.

The argument is that there is nothing to prove or evidence (whichever word you choose) that water dwelling fish emerged from water, developed lungs and feet over a long period of time (by mutation and/or natural selection) and then eventually some of them became (evolved to) humans while others did not, in other words, stayed the same without evolving to such. Fossil evidence does not technically demonstrate the motions necessary to effect those changes. Therefore, to summarize from the fossil evidence that fish eventually evolved to be land dwellers, including humans is assumption accepted by many on the part of science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, we have been here before.

Yes we have beem here before.

Science is a human behaviour and it can be observed that different humans understand what is science differently.
In effect while some methods in at least one version of science is in effect about the objective in part, it doesn't mean that it is objective what science is as a method.
So yes, I understand your version of science.

Methodological Naturalism is the universal academic standard for basic sciences.

But for the bold one, I can't answer unless you understand that science as a human behaviour is not objective as such, but rather at least one version uses objectivity in effect.

Simply calling science a human behavior does not address the issue of what is science outside your vague nebulous philosophy

 

[shunyadragon]

Realistically it hangs on nothing., regardless of its orbiting.

False, you forgot gravity. The earth is what it is because of gravity. IT does not simply hang in space on nothing,

 

[shunyadragon]

Scientists analyze what is said to be evidence sometimes in a trial.

Not a legal trial

 

[shunyadragon]

Psychology is called soft science since it makes use of internal data from humans. We all know internal motivation can and will alter output behavior; body language, to create an external data illusion; con job. We all can empathize to a degree, but nobody knows every con artist trick. It would be easier if we could read their minds to get direct data. Casino math used by all the life science, uses fuzzy dice data which is at least partially subjective, and may not always apply. People are different from inanimate objects and require some additional tools and assumptions.

The most important tool of science is consciousness. How do you know if your consciousness is calibrated when you do science? If I have a scale, and I use it to measure, but I do not know how to calibrate it to is it is calibrated, my world view; data, can be shifted and I may not know it. Consciousness is not well known enough understood to make a successful calibration, unaffected by internal bias. That takes work and that work is not required in science. One just has to go along with the consensus premises, which also appeared without the requirement of calibration. Most theory expires with time and very few stand the test of time.

If science, like evolution, has all the answers, why is it still looking and employing more people than ever? If we complete a construction project; dogma, all the workers go home or start another project, and not hang around the finished project, even adding more bodies while claiming this is done so do not ask questions. There is an internal contradiction due to bad calibration. The more you know the less you realize you know. The newbies will learn in time.

Science and the sciences of evolution do not claim to have all the answers, The rest is not something I can respond to.

Science is also there, as much for the good paying jobs, as defining the truth of nature. The bureaucracy of science will maintain obsolete theory, to maintain jobs, since any radial change can impact the lives of working people. It can also impact prestige and who sits at the big table. For example, dark matter and dark energy have never been seen in the lab to know if they are real. The Standard theory is on life-support and this is helping keep it alive. However, the unverifiable existence violates the cardinal rule of needing verification before paying homage. However, they are people and jobs on the line and this keeps the ball rolling. Internal is important to the big picture.

Actually scientists are not paid that well compare to other professions with equivalent or less education, The rest is soap box foolishness.

It is like red tape in Government is a way to justify too many union workers for the job. As time goes on this make work fact is forgotten, and the red tape fix gains more prominence and becomes a dogma you cannot tamper with.

Our human existence has two sides. We exist in material reality as a biological units that others can see and verify. We also exist behind our own eyes and senses, in private, based on how reality impacts us as individuals. We can be optimistic or pessimistic, with the same externally verifiable material existence. Most science does not address both, but both always exist together and can impact science.

We have a good handle on external reality, but internal reality is far less known. It may be time to balance this out by making internal data the subject of direct observation. We all carry that lab on our shoulders; brain and consciousness and internal feedback.

You need to respond more coherently and specifically Nothing here is relevant.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Not everyone's concept of "evidence" is such that it proves the point.

I think only creationists are still stuck on proof. The philosophically literate understand the difference between a proof and a convincing demonstration. I am convinced that you simply cannot adapt and correct your usage. I expect you to be making this mistake for as many years as you continue posting here.

you really do not "know" that water dwelling fish evolved to be amphibians.

You're repeating yourself without adding any new information or attempting to present any counterargument to my earlier rebuttals, which I have no incentive to repeat now.

Yes, I do know that, just as I KNOW that if you are human and not AI, you were a baby once, and that a given building's foundation was built before its roof. I understand how the world works in those areas. So do you presumably. But when it comes to evolution, you don't understand how the world works or how to interpret the scientific evidence. It's the same process - empiricism and critical analysis.

It's YOU that doesn't know the science, but how could you? You don't even try to learn it as your repeated return to the word proof indicates.

Realistically it hangs on nothing., regardless of its orbiting.

No, it doesn't.

Hang - "suspend or be suspended from above with the lower part dangling free."

A necklace hangs from a neck and a mobile hangs from a ceiling. An air freshener might hang from a rear-view mirror and a prisoner might hang from a rope in a gallows. They all imply attachment, dangling, and a fixed position. Flying birds aren't hanging. Clouds don't hang. And neither does the earth, moon or stars.

Job 26:7 ESV…
Job 26 ESV
“He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.” This is from no “ancient cultural perspective.” Back then, such an expressed view would have been considered ignorant, at the very least. But today we know it’s scientifically accurate!

As I just explained, the earth isn't hanging.

Moreover, just about every other statement about the earth in the Bible has it flat and with edges (and sometimes corners), fixed and motionless, supported on pillars, and domed like a snow globe with stars embedded in the dome and rain leaking in from above it.

 

[shunyadragon]

What philosophical beliefs are problematic shunyD ? are you building another strawman .. give one problematic belief I have .. in relation to universally accepted norms in science .. .. you know .. me being the "Scientist" in the room .. you .. yeah .. Not the scientist in the room

Tell me about this problematic Philosophical beief and this universally accepted science norm being violated.

Likely many philosophical beliefs are problematic, because they deal with subjective subjects. Science is not a philosophical belief system.