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

[Subduction Zone]

What is evidence and what is not evidence according to Subduction Zone?

Please, not according to me. Try again without the false accusation.

 

[Set Free]

Huh!?!?!?!!?

Many humans are doing the reciprocal of what they are predicted and should be doing.
How can I or anyone be fit to explain something that we don’t naturally abide by?

 

[Set Free]

Please, not according to me. Try again without the false accusation.

Let’s try one more time:
What is and what is not evidence, according to Subduction Zone?

Do you wish to keep avoiding or answer and help me learn since you’ve already made the initial false accusation that I do not know? Once you remove the false accusations from yourself, you will clearly be able to remove, if any, false accusations of others.

 

[Set Free]

Standard? Who? The scientists in the fields involving evolution are constantly re-examining the evidence. I do not believe there are many scientists in the fields that deal with evolution seriously question the science, I am a geologist and in the years I have been looking there are less than 20 world wide, and almost all work with Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute.

What is your point?

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

I understand the internal conflicts with evolution theory. I also understand it is easy for many to sit back, avoid, dismiss, downplay, and hide in comfort rather than address. There is no point if anyone doesn’t critique or question.

 

[shunyadragon]

Let’s try one more time:
What is and what is not evidence, according to Subduction Zone?

Do you wish to keep avoiding or answer and help me learn since you’ve already made the initial false accusation that I do not know? Once you remove the false accusations from yourself, you will clearly be able to remove, if any, false accusations of others.

Science would not depend on the standard of evidence according to @Subduction Zone. Science relies on Methodological Naturalism objective verifiable evidence to test and falsify theories and hypothesis.

 

[shunyadragon]

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

I understand the internal conflicts with evolution theory. I also understand it is easy for many to sit back, avoid, dismiss, downplay, and hide in comfort rather than address. There is no point if anyone doesn’t critique or question.

There are no internal conflicts questioning the foundation of the science of evolution.

From your source:
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? No, all is well
Theory accommodates evidence through relentless synthesis, say Gregory A. Wray, Hopi E. Hoekstra and colleagues.

You have presenting nothing to support your assertions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let’s try one more time:
What is and what is not evidence, according to Subduction Zone?

Do you wish to keep avoiding or answer and help me learn since you’ve already made the initial false accusation that I do not know? Once you remove the false accusations from yourself, you will clearly be able to remove, if any, false accusations of others.

You made the same error that you made in your previous post. Not "according to Subduction Zone". I made no false accusation. I can support my claims. Just because you made an error you should not try to make this personal.

But since you do not understand what evidence is I will help you. I can find multiple sources hat will explain this to you but this is a handy one:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

You made the false claim of evidence for variation. That was wrong. The observed evidence supports the theory of evolution, therefore it is evidence for the theory. That is all that one need s to know. This article also tells us that there is no evidence for creationism. To even have evidence one must need a scientific hypothesis to start with at a minimum. Scientific hypotheses are be definition falsifiable. If one's idea is not falsifiable it is merely an ad hoc explanation and worthless in the world of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science would not depend on the standard of evidence according to @Subduction Zone. Science relies on Methodological Naturalism objective verifiable evidence to test and falsify theories and hypothesis.

I know, I do not try to impose my definitions upon others. That is why I got irritated with the false accusation. Meanwhile I have no demonstrated that he did make a false claim about the theory of evolution.

Of course creationists are not the only ones that are in denial at times. There are scientists that sure have claimed "that's not evidence" in the past as well. A clear cut definition of what counts as evidence makes the fact that evidence exists undeniable.

Sadly some conflate "evidence" with "proof". There is no absolution proof in science. Just as their is no absolute proof in a court of law. There is only "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". The theory of evolution has been "proven" in that sense a long long time ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

I understand the internal conflicts with evolution theory. I also understand it is easy for many to sit back, avoid, dismiss, downplay, and hide in comfort rather than address. There is no point if anyone doesn’t critique or question.

That article does not dispute the fact of evolution one iota. Did you even read it? They are merely debating whether one needs to go above and beyond Darwin's ideas. There is no support for the creation myths at all in that article.

 

[Set Free]

The first question here is are you willfully ignorant or have been misled into ignorance by the faith community you have been surrounded by. If the latter we could have a discussion where I will show that the scientific discipline of evolutionary biology is as well grounded in evidence and experiments and scientific validation through successful predictions and testing as any discipline in physics or chemistry. If you are willfully ignorant and you reject evolution on theological grounds regardless of scientific evidence, then I won't waste my time and will wish you good luck.

One final thing. I am a Hindu and a scientist and am least bothered by atheist Christian bickering that often goes on here. So please leave your theology and scripture behind if you wish a discussion, as I have scripture and theology too.

So.... do you wish a discussion?

You seem reasonable. You also seem to have sound judgement and self-control on whom you wish to communicate with and who not to communicate with, based on how irrelevant and useless bickering can get between humans.

The main areas of interest appear to be variation within species or if species evolved into different species, as well as if there are programmers/guiders at some events, initial cause, or if evolution was blind/all happenstance, as well as what exactly can be tested, repeated, and what cannot be tested to start with. I do not exclude either, and can listen and respond to any. There is also a desire to learn, yet not a desire to conform. There is also no desire for something to be demanded as reality, by need. I do not need to know something through demand if it cannot be known. I am more than willing to discuss evolution theory, theistic evolution, guided evolution, design, ancient astronomers, morphic resonance, or combining any of them.

So let’s start with things that can actually be known, tested, repeated in the present. Sound science, rather than anecdotal evidence. I look forward to sharing ideas, and the potential for us to acquire fruit by reasoning even if we disagree on certain things or agree on certain things.

 

[Set Free]

That article does not dispute the fact of evolution one iota. Did you even read it? They are merely debating whether one needs to go above and beyond Darwin's ideas. There is no support for the creation myths at all in that article.

That is the point, going beyond Darwin’s ideas. I stated that many think the SET needs re-thought. Did you even read what was initially stated?

What’s up with adding creation into it, dispute of evolution? Seems completely irrelevant. Why did you do this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seem reasonable. You also seem to have sound judgement and self-control on whom you wish to communicate with and who not to communicate with, based on how irrelevant and useless bickering can get between humans.

The main areas of interest appear to be variation within species or if species evolved into different species, as well as if there are programmers/guiders at some events, initial cause, or if evolution was blind/all happenstance, as well as what exactly can be tested, repeated, and what cannot be tested to start with. I do not exclude either, and can listen and respond to any. There is also a desire to learn, yet not a desire to conform. There is also no desire for something to be demanded as reality, by need. I do not need to know something through demand if it cannot be known. I am more than willing to discuss evolution theory, theistic evolution, guided evolution, design, ancient cosmologists, morphic resonance, or combining any of them.

So let’s start with things that can actually be known, tested, repeated in the present. Sound science, rather than anecdotal evidence. I look forward to sharing ideas, and the potential for us to acquire fruit by reasoning even if we disagree on certain things or agree on certain things.

One question, do you understand your error in regards to your claim that you made about evidence earlier? It appears that you may be the one guilty of coming up with your own definition of evidence.

The theory of evolution can and has been tested and confirmed countless times. What ideas do you have to counter it? How would that idea be tested?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is the point, going beyond Darwin’s ideas. I stated that many think the SET needs re-thought. Did you even read what was initially stated?

What’s up with adding creation into it, dispute of evolution? Seems completely irrelevant. Why did you do this?

You have been making the same errors that creationists make. When one argues like a creationist others are going to assume that that person is a creationist.

 

[Set Free]

There are no internal conflicts questioning the foundation of the science of evolution.

From your source:
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? No, all is well
Theory accommodates evidence through relentless synthesis, say Gregory A. Wray, Hopi E. Hoekstra and colleagues.

You have presenting nothing to support your assertions.

When you quote mine one camp and exclude the other camp, who actually wrote the article you’re being dishonest.

 

[Set Free]

You have been making the same errors that creationists make. When one argues like a creationist others are going to assume that that person is a creationist.

What is a creationist, according to Subduction Zone?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is a creationist, according to Subduction Zone?

Just about any science denier would qualify. Tell me what your beliefs are and why you have those beliefs and I can explain to you if you are a creationist or not. When you made false claims about evidence you all but shouted that you are one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you quote mine one camp and exclude the other camp, who actually wrote the article you’re being dishonest.

Not a proper quote mine. When someone quote mines someone else it is usually from an article that is hard to access. This article is readily accessible so calling that a quote mine is not correct.

 

[sayak83]

You seem reasonable. You also seem to have sound judgement and self-control on whom you wish to communicate with and who not to communicate with, based on how irrelevant and useless bickering can get between humans.

The main areas of interest appear to be variation within species or if species evolved into different species, as well as if there are programmers/guiders at some events, initial cause, or if evolution was blind/all happenstance, as well as what exactly can be tested, repeated, and what cannot be tested to start with. I do not exclude either, and can listen and respond to any. There is also a desire to learn, yet not a desire to conform. There is also no desire for something to be demanded as reality, by need. I do not need to know something through demand if it cannot be known. I am more than willing to discuss evolution theory, theistic evolution, guided evolution, design, ancient astronomers, morphic resonance, or combining any of them.

So let’s start with things that can actually be known, tested, repeated in the present. Sound science, rather than anecdotal evidence. I look forward to sharing ideas, and the potential for us to acquire fruit by reasoning even if we disagree on certain things or agree on certain things.

Cool. You asked something regarding genes. Here is the theoretical and experimental evidence I presented showing how genes with new functions arise in organisms. Let me know what you think.

How New Genes Arise (yes they do)

 

[ajarntham]

There are records of testimonies from human beings that Darwin wasn’t the stand-up citizen projected in the present. First off, I’m not anti-evolution. Second off, even if Darwin was not of perfect morale, it doesn’t mean that he was wrong about everything that he said. Third, humans evolved the nature of lying, capability of deception, acting, artificially changing what may be true or false, about records of history, evolved the biased tendency to project their heroes as nearly perfect that they agree with and project their non-heroes as “religious” or some other unsound judgement. Fourth, Donald, as all humans do, are capable of saying stuff in a joking or sarcastic manner, where also humans are capable of reading more into meaningless words than what may have actually been said. It also doesn’t mean that Donald is incapable of saying anything that isn’t accurate or that he has no morale. Any bias leads to social Darwinism. Do you place anti-Darwin/anti-evolutionists into a social class and evolutionists/Darwinists into a social class?

I conclude, with no bias, that I did not personally know Charles and what I do know about the actual reality of human nature is that it tends to be biased and selfish.

But you weren't asking me whether I thought that Darwin had perfect morals; you were asking me how I could know that Darwin never ordered Australians brought back to be stuffed. I don't see how anything you said here (most of which is true) shows that my answer to that question was unsatisfactory,

 

[ajarntham]

It also was uses as a clich'e. When working on an anthropology paper on the Huron, I read the diary of a woman who was a missionary with them, and she used the word "savages" a great deal and yet really found many things she liked about them. Much like the word "Negro" was commonly used decades ago, it seems strange to us today.

Darwin had many words to say about the indigenous in S.A., and he admired some of their qualities while sometimes demeaning his own English culture, such as how their children seemed free and joyous while English children were stuck in restrictive and boring classrooms back in not so "jolly old England".

And that's a tradition that goes back at least as far as Montaigne in the 16th century. (His essay "On the Cannibals" also speaks very admiringly of the sweetness of life among the American "savages" compared with the corruption of big-city Europe.) I imagine there's something similar from some ancient Roman author speaking of the Gauls or the Britons.