Humans and Chimp, its True...

[Man of Faith]

Yes, we are all eagerly awaiting your source :yes:

I don't have that right now. I know I ran across that in my many many many research brain storming sessions. I might have worded it incorrectly though. Let me try this again. 98% of all life forms fossils have been found. Meaning there are more fossils to be discovered but most will be the same animal or plants that have already been discovered.

 

[Gabethewiking]

98% of all life forms fossils have been found. Meaning there are more fossils to be discovered but most will be the same animal or plants that have already been discovered.

I just wanted to do a small "insert" here before responding to your post to me.

How do you know 98% of all "life forms fossils" have been found? This statement would mean that you know, you have to know, where all fossils are else you could not claim a number, it makes no sense. I think you need to provide the source of where this information comes from as I suspect you misunderstood something about it. Can you supply a link further on? I will not pursue it but with respect for my fellow members?

 

[Autodidact]

What is wrong with getting information from people that you trust and have the same worldview? I'm sure everyone does it. Unless you personally duplicate every experiment in the world and inspect every fossil yourself.

Because they're proven liars. If you trust them and share their worldview, you're in trouble.

 

[Autodidact]

You are equivocating on the definition of evolution. It is hard to have a discussion about evoltion when on one hand you say evolution means chimps and humans are cousins and then on the other hand you say evolution means shots and vaccines. We need to stick to one subject or we will be going around in circles.

Evolution is the change in populations over time. Do you agree or disagree that populations change over time? By this I mean that after many generations, descendants are often different from their ancestors.

 

[Autodidact]

You are equivocating on the definition of evolution. It is hard to have a discussion about evoltion when on one hand you say evolution means chimps and humans are cousins and then on the other hand you say evolution means shots and vaccines. We need to stick to one subject or we will be going around in circles.

+1 when it comes to human evolution or anything that cannot be tested.

I'm guessing that one of the many things you know nothing about is the ample experimental evidence that supports ToE? Are you interested in learning about it?

 

[tumbleweed41]

I don't have that right now. I know I ran across that in my many many many research brain storming sessions. I might have worded it incorrectly though. Let me try this again. 98% of all life forms fossils have been found. Meaning there are more fossils to be discovered but most will be the same animal or plants that have already been discovered.

So, you made a claim without any knowledge of whether it was true, or what exactly you were saying?
Perhaps you are confusing the issue with the 98% genetic match between humans and chimps?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What is wrong with getting information from people that you trust and have the same worldview?

 

[Autodidact]

Here is my question. Can you post the scientific method as you understand it. Thank you.

Four essential elements[18][19][20] of a scientific method[21] are iterations,[22][23] recursions,[24] interleavings, and orderings of the following:

• Characterizations (observations,[25] definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
• Hypotheses[26][27] (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)[28]
• Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction[29] from the hypothesis or theory)
• Experiments[30] (tests of all of the above)

A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:[33]

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Science is a social enterprise, and scientific work tends to be accepted by the community when it has been confirmed. Crucially, experimental and theoretical results must be reproduced by others within the science community.

There are basic assumptions derived from philosophy that form the base of the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions from methodological naturalism form the basis on which science is grounded.

[all from wiki]

 

[Gabethewiking]

Good post Gabe, I agree with the question. Now the next step is somewhat ambiguous to me, "Do background research". I assume this is so we can come up with a hypothesis, which is our proposed explanation for the question. Having discussed, reasearched and debated the evolution vs creation debate for a about four years, I have done considerable research into my position.

Let me know what you want to do about that step. As far as I am concerned we both have done considerable research into our positions. If you have something you want me to read for that step, let me know. Thank you.

Yes, there is some problems regarding this step. You would need to study biology, geology and so on, and if you had you would accept Evolution as it is a fact of our world, so lets ignore that point and I will hope you get sufficient information from me and others in this thread (please do not forget them, most people can help with various fields and may be better att explaining different things because of any specific research or knowledge they may have) and Go to ->

Construct Hypothesis.

My Hypothesis would be this: By my observations of the known world I have come to the conclusion that all animal life is related to eachother by various branches, I believe the Chimpanzee is the Human families closest living member / "Cousin".

The reason I used and italicize 'believe' is that this is so far only an educated guess from my side and we need to go to next step to try and falsify it. The next step is to Test this Hypothesis but I will wait until you inform me about your opinions and views thus far.

Ga Briel

 

[Autodidact]

Here is my question. Can you post the scientific method as you understand it. Thank you.

That will work. I am short on time also, but now that we have the scientific method down, I will work on my next question. Hopefully this scientific method will take us to some facts.

Well, what do you think? Has science contributed to our understanding of the world, the planet, the universe, atoms, electricity, our bodies, this computer...or not?

 

[Autodidact]

By faith.

Quoted for emphasis.

It's a different worldview. MoF doesn't rely on empiricism or observation of the real world. He's decided for whatever reason to get his answers directly from the Bible, and that's that. It's a more ancient, primitive, tribal worldview.

So, Man of Faith: Is the earth round, or flat?

 

[Autodidact]

I am willing to follow the scientific method.

I'll hold you to that.

 

[Autodidact]

Okay Gabe, I think I am back up to speed on our conversation. Let's get started. I don't want to rush though this because I want to be very methodical and get this right. It might be the case that I will need to take some time to study something that I hear along the way. So if I don't respond for a while, don't worry I will make sure I respond at least within a few hours of each post with something to let you know where I am.

The scientific method that we both agreed on and that you provided is below. I want to follow that because that is the method for science to know anything as a fact. And I want the scientific method to take us to common descent because the claim is that evolution via common descent is science.

What do we need to begin? From the chart it looks like we need a question. We need to ask a question. Let us try to agree on what question we should ask. My recommendation is the question is "Is evolution via common descent true?" Or it could be "Are humans and chimps cousins?" If you had a different one in mind let me know, I will wait on your feedback on what the question should be.

The question that ToE attempts to answer is: How do we get so many different species of organisms on earth? To a lesser extent, it also addresses why the different organisms are so neatly adapted to their environments, or, to put it differently, why are they so cool?

 

[Man of Faith]

Yes, there is some problems regarding this step. You would need to study biology, geology and so on, and if you had you would accept Evolution as it is a fact of our world, so lets ignore that point and I will hope you get sufficient information from me and others in this thread (please do not forget them, most people can help with various fields and may be better att explaining different things because of any specific research or knowledge they may have) and Go to ->

Construct Hypothesis.

My Hypothesis would be this: By my observations of the known world I have come to the conclusion that all animal life is related to eachother by various branches, I believe the Chimpanzee is the Human families closest living member / "Cousin".

The reason I used and italicize 'believe' is that this is so far only an educated guess from my side and we need to go to next step to try and falsify it. The next step is to Test this Hypothesis but I will wait until you inform me about your opinions and views thus far.

Ga Briel

I am okay with this, but just so you know, I will have to ignore my own personal beliefs and have an open mind. I am willing to do this and accept the hypothesis as stated. I can use my imagination and say that there is no Bible or creator for now and I can see myself coming to the same hypothesis as you given that scenario. So, Hypothesis is accepted.

This science isn't as hard as I thought it would be. I can see now how Darwin was able to do it without a scientific degree. I mean we are moving quickly through the paces. What's next? It looks like it is "test with an experiment." So we want to test our hypothesis. We want to test that a human and a chimp are cousins. How do you propose we do that?

 

[Autodidact]

Okay Gabe, I think I am back up to speed on our conversation. Let's get started. I don't want to rush though this because I want to be very methodical and get this right. It might be the case that I will need to take some time to study something that I hear along the way. So if I don't respond for a while, don't worry I will make sure I respond at least within a few hours of each post with something to let you know where I am.

The scientific method that we both agreed on and that you provided is below. I want to follow that because that is the method for science to know anything as a fact. And I want the scientific method to take us to common descent because the claim is that evolution via common descent is science.

What do we need to begin? From the chart it looks like we need a question. We need to ask a question. Let us try to agree on what question we should ask. My recommendation is the question is "Is evolution via common descent true?" Or it could be "Are humans and chimps cousins?" If you had a different one in mind let me know, I will wait on your feedback on what the question should be.

Thanks Auto, but I think I found out what the problem was. I don't want the ToE explained to me, I can go listen to Dawkins for that. I have heard it so many times and I have forgotten it many times over. What I want to do is experience it for myself, first hand. Just like I experience gravity, computers, and a round earth. That is why I am in the process of doing just that with Gabe. I think if I experience it myself, or see how those that claim they were led to it via science, then I will have a better understanding of it.

Let me repeat and emphasize. YOu have absolutely no idea what the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is. You make false statements (aka lies) about it constantly. But you don't want to learn what it actually says. You'd rather continue to disbelieve and argue against a non-existent theory that no scientist asserts, than learn the actual theory.

Science, whether evolution, gravity, computers, and a round earth, is not what you experience first hand. Science is what you do to overcome what you experience firsthand. That's why the scientific method was developed.

Let's take the earth: What I experience first hand is that the earth is stationary, pretty flat, and the sun passes over my head in an arc each day. Science tells me that the earth is round, is moving through space very quickly, simultaneously rotating, and revolving around the sun. That violates every common sense experience I have of the earth. It also happens to be true.

Evolution is like that.

How on earth can you reject a theory that is the basis of modern biology without even learning what it is?

What you're doing is deliberately avoiding learning about it, because you're afraid that if you do you might accept it, as do most people who learn what it actually is. And I can understand why you're afraid of that.

So fine, don't learn about it. But please don't then go around telling lies about it. It's dishonest. You wouldn't want us to think you're a liar, would you?

 

[Autodidact]

I don't have that right now. I know I ran across that in my many many many research brain storming sessions. I might have worded it incorrectly though. Let me try this again. 98% of all life forms fossils have been found. Meaning there are more fossils to be discovered but most will be the same animal or plants that have already been discovered.

Still waiting for the source of this lie. You're not helping your credibility any. Is your entire position based on lies?

 

[Autodidact]

I am okay with this, but just so you know, I will have to ignore my own personal beliefs and have an open mind. I am willing to do this and accept the hypothesis as stated. I can use my imagination and say that there is no Bible or creator for now and I can see myself coming to the same hypothesis as you given that scenario. So, Hypothesis is accepted.

This science isn't as hard as I thought it would be. I can see now how Darwin was able to do it without a scientific degree. I mean we are moving quickly through the paces. What's next? It looks like it is "test with an experiment." So we want to test our hypothesis. We want to test that a human and a chimp are cousins. How do you propose we do that?

1. You don't have to set aside your belief in a creator. ToE is NOT the assertion that God did not create all things. Like all science, it only talks about the natural world. If you believe in God, then science is about His creation. ToE does not address who created all living things, only how. You can completely accept ToE and the belief that God created the universe, and it works just fine.
2. Experiment is not the only kind of test. Any observation works. You use your hypothesis to predict what you will observe, either experimentally or in the world.

 

[Tristesse]

I am okay with this, but just so you know, I will have to ignore my own personal beliefs and have an open mind. I am willing to do this and accept the hypothesis as stated. I can use my imagination and say that there is no Bible or creator for now and I can see myself coming to the same hypothesis as you given that scenario. So, Hypothesis is accepted.

This science isn't as hard as I thought it would be. I can see now how Darwin was able to do it without a scientific degree. I mean we are moving quickly through the paces. What's next? It looks like it is "test with an experiment." So we want to test our hypothesis. We want to test that a human and a chimp are cousins. How do you propose we do that?

A degree in science is not needed to form a scientific hypotheses or a theory. If you get all of the peer reviewed papers completed and go through the proper scientific channels to get your hypothesis or theory accepted than you've made an achievement in science. The degree is not as important as your achievements are. Plus you also have to understand the period of time in which he lived. The best way to study science in those days was not to have a degree but to study through the church. I don't even think Isaac Newton had any sort of degree in science.

 

[Autodidact]

A degree in science is not needed to form a scientific hypotheses or a theory. If you get all of the peer reviewed papers completed and go through the proper scientific channels to get your hypothesis or theory accepted than you've made an achievement in science. The degree is not as important as your achievements are. Plus you also have to understand the period of time in which he lived. The best way to study science in those days was not to have a degree but to study through the church. I don't even think Isaac Newton had any sort of degree in science.

But it's true, anyone can do science. It's not about your degrees, but about the quality of your work--your methodology. If you use good methodology, your conclusions can be accepted.

 

[Tristesse]

But it's true, anyone can do science. It's not about your degrees, but about the quality of your work--your methodology. If you use good methodology, your conclusions can be accepted.

Yeah, and if your just using a degree to validate everything you say or use, than it's just a big argument from authority. And that holds no weight with me, and it should hold no weight with anyone. Because anyone can get a degree, but it's your methodology that counts.