• 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!

If Darwin or the FBI had less than 15% of the data for a case

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Of course Charle's grandfather who believed 'all things from sea shells' was quite resourceful.
He was so scientific he invented rotation therapy for difficult psychiatric cases. You put them in a chair and spin them at high speed... they often throw up or pass out.... but strides were made? and there was even a contraption made at that time that seated 4 and siun up to 300 times a minute which was great? especially if you wanted control over unruly patients... put em in the chair and spin them till they get more docile

In the spirit of thanksgiving meals, you have to give him credit for carving a semicircle in his dining room table
so he could get as close to the food as possible.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
For example at the time of the association of John Kennedy, the FBI had about 15% of the information for the case that exists today. Does that warrant a fresh look or reexamination

And by the same token, since Darwin had less that 15% of the mammal species to examine and no genetic information or theory to go on, does that warrant a fresh look or reexamination?

well I suppose it could be questioned but what does that have to do with religion. I have no idea why this is in this forum.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I am not saying that humans did or not evolve from a chimplike-ancestor. I am stating that it can only be inferred.

Only? Inference is a valid and powerful logical process. Perhaps you don't understand what it is. You and I both do it all day every day. We come to conclusions based on what we see (evidence, that which is evident). You see that you there is very little milk left in the refrigerator and correctly infer that you will need to get more or run out.

You come across the body of a man on the ground with blood oozing from a knife wound in the back. Can you make any valid inferences from that observation? I could. The man was probably murdered. Somebody else put a knife in his back. I can also infer that he had parents who conceived him, that he developed in his mother's womb, that he was born, and later learned to walk, etc..

That's what inference is. And you keep calling it evidence for some while agreeing that it is not evidence. You make no sense.

Yes, we infer that human beings evolved from chimplike ancestors based on multiple lines of evidence. If you are able to follow along, you are welcome to join us. If you simply cannot or will not understand that the matter is settled science and why, that's fine as well.

And what I mean by settled science is well-established science. The scientific community is always willing to look at new evidence, especially any that could falsify their hypotheses or theories.

But we're not expecting any, and the only competing hypothesis would have to be some form of creationism. So unless somebody can muster up a reason to consider creationism seriously, there is no other possible explanation for the fossil and genetic evidence than that man evolved from chimplike ancestral apes (not chimps as we know them today, but their ancestors, which looked much like they do today, one population of which was a common ancestor of both lines, Pan and Homo).

I am interested in communicating with people who are not emotionally charged

Then you've come to the right place. We're interested in communicating with people who can make their points clearly and cogently, and can take a counterargument without falling to pieces in an emotional display.

who aren’t quick to get their nerves all tangled up and react with hostility, quick to tell others they do not understand

If telling you that you don't understand is too violent an idea for you to read, then you've come to the wrong place.This is what we do here. We discuss and debate. People offer ideas and others agree with them or contradict them.

I cannot even state that inference is enough evidence for many, a simple one sentence and another stating I do not understand that inference is not evidence. A simple one sentence cannot even be read correctly. My point all along was that inference is not evidence.

Sorry, Set Free, but the problem is yours. That claim is as trivial as saying that most people think that a cat is a bell, but it isn't. The first part is self-evidently incorrect in two ways - cats aren't bells, and most people do not confuse the two - and saying so is pointless.

I cannot even state that much without others getting overly defensive, nerves being rattled thinking their ideologies are being threatened

You're being defensive, not others.

And there is nothing to defend coming from you. You make outrageous claims such as that inference is evidence to most people, and that all people and even all subatomic particles are creationists and evolutionists, as well as repeated irrelevant references to anthropomorphism and scientism. I doubt that anybody has any idea what you are talking about. Several of us have told you that already.

If the sciences truly brings out these morals in others where emotional defense of ideologies are priority over having a respectful conversation or debate, then I’m not interested in engaging.

What evokes the reaction you are getting is your manner of discussion here, not the sciences. There is a spectrum of personalities represented on any forum. Some will be more diplomatic and others more in your face. If you can't tolerate them all, then this is not the place for you.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Are you inferring that the only truth possibly attainable is through scientism?



Like I said, everybody knows that evolution is true. I try not to invoke anthropomorphism into a theory. It is human beings who tell.
No, we do not know that cows and whales have an ancestor for certain. It is inferred that they do.



That’s why I stated to avoid that rubbish. As I also stated that there cannot be evidence for guided or unguided. So, if you care to pounce all over one and if you claim unguided, you as well have no evidence. I stated early on that I’m not interested in this yet people keep throwing creationism, Christianity, at me incorrectly. It’s quite a sad attempt of diversion.



By what you said, we are in no disagreement. It is not provable. It is inferred. There is no repeatable experimentation. Exchanging words like ‘experiment’ for ‘event’ are irrelevant.



Then you’re in a pickle of contradiction and false equivalence.

If a cow and whale are on trial for common ancestry how is that determined outside of inference alone? You said that DNA that is collected must need able to be shown to come from a specific ancestor no matter how many people test it. There is absolutely no DNA collected from the mysterious and unknown ancestor. The ancestor isn’t even ‘specific.’ It is unknown and remains a mystery. I have no issues with anyone or scientists inferring that they do with no evidence, or anyone inferring that they do not. Both have no evidence outside of inference.
Inference to the best explanation based on observable evidence is the cornerstone of the scientific method. Proofs exist only in the domain of Mathematics and is not a word used in the scientific domain.
Abduction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Scientific Discovery (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Holy moly you are splendid at deception and diversion.

This is you attacking the character of another poster without bothering to identify anything specific that would constitute a deception or a diversion, nor explaining why you concluded that it was such.

I do not require your saving grace, but thanks.

He offered to teach you as have many of us. You don't seem interested. You aren't even grateful. You're dismissive.

You’ve managed to apply the scientific method in many unwarranted situations.

Another vague, unsupported claim.

That is why I asked you if you think scientism is the only way to attain truth. A simple yes or no would have done well.

It depends what you mean by scientism. Most truth I get is from simple observation and experience.
 

Set Free

Member
The way i sees it, you're the only one who makes rubbish claims like that to begin with.

Whatever you say, Darkstorn. Atoms and subatomic particles do not create or evolve then.
Biological life, made of atoms and subatomic particles do not create or evolve either then.
 

Set Free

Member
He offered to teach you as have many of us. You don't seem interested. You aren't even grateful. You're dismissive.

Irrelevant. I never asked for his teachings or saving grace. I am uninterested in their character, proselytizing, and demands. Nice guilt trip attempt though. These are debating forums. I’m sorry I do not bow down and conform.

This is you attacking the character of another poster without bothering to identify anything specific that would constitute a deception or a diversion, nor explaining why you concluded that it was such.

2 simple sentences. One stating that truth is attained in many ways. One asking if they thought scientism is the only way to attain truth. Responses: deception and diversion from the statement and question. Throwing irrelevant jargon into the mix.

Another vague, unsupported claim.

Whatever you say as well. Do my wishful teachers understand that atoms and subatomic particles create and evolve?

It depends what you mean by scientism. Most truth I get is from simple observation and experience.

This question wasn’t directed at you, but I appreciate this response that wasn’t deceptive and divertive.
 

Set Free

Member
Only? Inference is a valid and powerful logical process. Perhaps you don't understand what it is. You and I both do it all day every day.

Logical guesses and assumptions. I don’t guess and assume all day, everyday.

That's what inference is. And you keep calling it evidence for some while agreeing that it is not evidence. You make no sense.

Logical guesses and assumptions. Logical guesses and assumptions are viewed as enough evidence for many whereas logical guesses and assumptions are not evidence. I’ve already made it clear numerous times that there is nothing wrong with logical guesses and assumptions.

If you are able to follow along, you are welcome to join us. If you simply cannot or will not understand that the matter is settled science and why, that's fine as well.

Logical guesses and assumptions are not ‘settled’ science. That is why.


And what I mean by settled science is well-established science. The scientific community is always willing to look at new evidence, especially any that could falsify their hypotheses or theories.

Doubtful to everyone. Falsifying concepts that have never been truthified in the first place, would be a foolish attempt.

But we're not expecting any, and the only competing hypothesis would have to be some form of creationism.

It is essential that the outcome of testing such predictions, hypothesis be currently unknown. Expectations, and non-expectations are never good in any strict scientific sense. If the predictions are not accessible by observation or experience, the hypothesis is not yet testable and so will remain to that extent unscientific in a strict sense.

Then you've come to the right place. We're interested in communicating with people who can make their points clearly and cogently, and can take a counterargument without falling to pieces in an emotional display.

Counter arguments made and then guilt trips, diversion, deception in return. Rarely are topics addressed without irrelevant salads.

If telling you that you don't understand is too violent an idea for you to read, then you've come to the wrong place.This is what we do here. We discuss and debate. People offer ideas and others agree with them or contradict them.

Agreeing and disagreeing are part of debating. Guilt trips, diversion, and deception should be left out.

Sorry, Set Free, but the problem is yours. That claim is as trivial as saying that most people think that a cat is a bell, but it isn't. The first part is self-evidently incorrect in two ways - cats aren't bells, and most people do not confuse the two - and saying so is pointless.

Of course, problems are always everyone else’s and never the poster themselves. Have you corrected your post #162 yet?

You're being defensive, not others.

If your definition of defensive is not submitting or conforming to whatever most of you say, then sure. Guilt tripping someone into submission is very weak. I’m sorry this doesn’t work on me.

What evokes the reaction you are getting is your manner of discussion here, not the sciences. There is a spectrum of personalities represented on any forum. Some will be more diplomatic and others more in your face. If you can't tolerate them all, then this is not the place for you.

Disagreeing is great. Focusing on the topic themselves is great. Anything more is irrelevant.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Human-chimpanzee shared ancestry is only an "inference" in the same way that the results of paternity tests are "inferences".

I can't imagine a lawyer in a paternity case saying to a judge "Yes your honor, we acknowledge that the test results indicate that my client is very likely the father, but that is merely an inference".
 

Set Free

Member
Inference to the best explanation based on observable evidence is the cornerstone of the scientific method. Proofs exist only in the domain of Mathematics and is not a word used in the scientific domain.
Abduction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Scientific Discovery (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Current best explanations of inferrence are fine. Everyone has their inferred best explanation. If certain inferences are accepted by the majority, that is fine. I am impartial to other/alternative inferences, predictions, and hypotheses. Not everyone must accept and conform to one. What is best for one may not be best and acceptable to another.

Many have also brought up truth yet the sciences performed by humans are supposed to do no such things as demand truth.

In no ways have I denied or not accepted the possibilities of certain concepts of evolution theory presented. I just am not swift to conform and commit based upon best guesses or assumptions. Comparative genetics and comparative DNA for instance, although observed, is not a selling point.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
‘I am merely saying that it is void of scientific method beyond hypothesis, anecdotal evidence, and inference and not able to be observed, tested, repeated.
You are operating under a very fundamental misconception of how the scientific method works.

An event does not have to be directly observed or repeated in order for us to utilize the scientific method to reach conclusions about it. If that were so, we would never be able to say that the earth orbits the sun, or that the Valles Caldera is the result of an ancient volcano, or that the Missoula floods happened.

By your standards, any large-scale or pre-historic event could never be investigated via the scientific method.
 

Set Free

Member
Human-chimpanzee shared ancestry is only an "inference" in the same way that the results of paternity tests are "inferences".

I can't imagine a lawyer in a paternity case saying to a judge "Yes your honor, we acknowledge that the test results indicate that my client is very likely the father, but that is merely an inference".

If you’ve ever seen a case in court where a chimp or numerous chimps have been subpoenaed for a paternity test for a human female’s child, I would definitely love to read about this equivalence.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Current best explanations of inferrence are fine. Everyone has their inferred best explanation. If certain inferences are accepted by the majority, that is fine. I am impartial to other/alternative inferences, predictions, and hypotheses. Not everyone must accept and conform to one. What is best for one may not be best and acceptable to another.

Many have also brought up truth yet the sciences performed by humans are supposed to do no such things as demand truth.

In no ways have I denied or not accepted the possibilities of certain concepts of evolution theory presented. I just am not swift to conform and commit based upon best guesses or assumptions. Comparative genetics and comparative DNA for instance, although observed, is not a selling point.
What you choose to believe or not is entirely upto you. Just pointing out evolution is as conventional a science as particle physics or inorganic chemistry in how it uses the scientific method, including inference to the best explanation. That's all. Accepting some science domains and rejecting others when they all deploy the same methods of knowing about reality creates consistency problems in my opinion.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
If you’ve ever seen a case in court where a chimp or numerous chimps have been subpoenaed for a paternity test for a human female’s child, I would definitely love to read about this equivalence.
You missed the point.

Do you believe that the conclusions of genetic paternity tests are inferences?
 

Set Free

Member
You are operating under a very fundamental misconception of how the scientific method works.

An event does not have to be directly observed or repeated in order for us to utilize the scientific method to reach conclusions about it. If that were so, we would never be able to say that the earth orbits the sun, or that the Valles Caldera is the result of an ancient volcano, or that the Missoula floods happened.

By your standards, any large-scale or pre-historic event could never be investigated via the scientific method.

There really is no set in stone scientific method.

Hypothesis lead to predictions. If the predictions are not accessible by observation or experience, the hypothesis is not yet testable and so will remain to that extent unscientific in a strict sense.

I have no objections to any inferences, best guesses and assumptions. It appears the body may have and more than likely came from chimps in a scientific sense. But I am not completely sold and am impartial and open to anything else.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
There really is no set in stone scientific method.

Hypothesis lead to predictions. If the predictions are not accessible by observation or experience, the hypothesis is not yet testable and so will remain to that extent unscientific in a strict sense.

I have no objections to any inferences, best guesses and assumptions. It appears the body may have and more than likely came from chimps in a scientific sense. But I am not completely sold and am impartial and open to anything else.
As long as you now understand that an event does not have to be repeated or directly observed in order for us to utilize the scientific method to draw conclusions about it.
 
Top