Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so back to... you screwed it because I say so.....

No, it is back to you won't listen so why should anyone help you?

 

[leroy]

No, my GPS does not work merely because some scientist says so.

You think that your GPS Works according to the math of the General Theory of Relativity , because someone told you ………… you haven’t verified it yourself.

So yes you do trust in testimonies as evidence (which is ok)

 

[leroy]

As the father of 2 young kids, I can assure you that this is pure BS.

Really, should I take you testimony as evidence that you are a father?.............. by your logic there is no evidence that you are a father because all I have is your testimony ……..even if you do a DNA test, you would still only have the testimony of the people that work in the laboratory

 

[leroy]

No, it is back to you won't listen so why should anyone help you?

All I said is that you believe In the Chromosome fusion, because you trust in the testimonies of scientists who did all the experiments and observations…………… what is so controversial or wrong about that?

 

[leroy]

And then others, who are negatively influenced by religion, reject the work by experts in science. They reject the work without any expertise of their own, just religious bias.

We all have a bias.

1 you rejected the existence of non-random mutations because that goes agaosnt your curerent understanding on the TOE

2 @Subduction Zone rejected the fact that in part, bats and dolphins developed echolocation through the same mutations because that contradicts his understanding of TOE

3 @Pogo thinks that am taking quotes out of context, because otherwise I would be correct and his atheist friend incorrect

we all have biases, and we all treat with more skepticism ideas that contradict our current view………..that is human nature

 

[Subduction Zone]

You think that your GPS Works according to the math of the General Theory of Relativity , because someone told you ………… you haven’t verified it yourself.

So yes you do trust in testimonies as evidence (which is ok)

I see that you are confused again. We may not verify every single scientific claim, but if we wanted to and had the talent we could verify any scientific claim. You do not appear to understand the difference between the two. Meanwhile when it comes to silly faith beliefs no one can verify them. That is why it is called "faith".

 

[Subduction Zone]

All I said is that you believe In the Chromosome fusion, because you trust in the testimonies of scientists who did all the experiments and observations…………… what is so controversial or wrong about that?

Because it is inaccurate and therefore less than honest. The work is reproduceable. Others have reproduced. With enough training I could reproduce it.

 

[gnostic]

You claim that the TOE is true, because you trust in testimonies. You trust the testimony of your teacher, or the testimony of the authors of books, or articles or papers etc.

You trust in the testimony of scientists who claimed to have done the experiments and the math, and the observations etc…. (which is ok, at least sometimes it is ok to trust in other´s people testimony)

If you think that testimonies are not evidence , then you have NEARLY zero evidence for evolution

You really are sticking your head in the sand on this.

You really don’t understand that OBSERVATIONS mean “evidence” or “experiments”, and these OBSERVATIONS should include “information” about the properties of the observed phenomena, which would include - detections, quantities, measurements, compositions (eg chemical compositions, what they made of, etc), etc…these “information” are usually called DATA. So “data” are themselves evidence & observations.

And if you have numbers or multiple evidence or experiments that are repeatable, multiple scientists can compare one evidence against the others, or one experiment against others, or compare one data against other data…that’s what observations testable and empirical.

Empirical evidence, empirical experiments & empirical data - let me just called those collectively as “empirical observations“ - are where they have multiple samples or specimens (the more observations they have, the better they can come to conclusions about whether models are correct or not), that scientists can compare them against each others - (and note that the following is very important for you to grasp) that how scientists find errors or anomalies, and that how they can determine whether the models (in some hypotheses or theories) are probable or improbable, correct or incorrect, and those empirical observations would verify or refute the models.

When you have so many evidence or experiments, plus the data, then it isn’t merely anecdotal testimonies, leroy. That‘s what you don’t understand.

And here are some other facts, there are many fields in biology, eg anatomy & physiology, genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, biophysics, germ research, zoology, botany, microbiology (studies of microorganisms), virology, etc, plus related specialities like medicine, pathology, paleontology (studies of fossils), geology (that includes biostratigraphy)…when you have so many different fields, each with their own data that were acquired from their respective tests, experiments and evidence, that you would something so utterly stupid like there being “nearly zero evidence for evolution“, you really do sounds like a closed-minded science-illiterate.

how do you know that? where you there? NO, you know that Behe made those claimes because you trust in the testimonies of those who where there. (therefore testimonies are evidence)

Wow. You are really utterly clueless, Leroy.

The Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District case (2005) have both transcripts and the judge verdicts, have been made available to public - public domain - so any can read the court transcript. So we do know what the lawyers on both side (prosecutor & defendant lawyers), asking the questions, and the answers given by each parties, including witnesses and expert witnesses.

Behe was the main expert witness for the Dover school board that were responsible for Intelligent Design being taught in public schools. Behe‘s answers can be read in those transcripts.

Although, he admitted that there are no experiments and no data for Intelligent Design, and there have been no Peer Review for any Intelligent Design papers (including Behe’s own Irreducible Complexity), his answers often come with APOLOGETIC EXCUSES, that he explained his positions about ID & about his Irreducible Complexity in his book - Darwin’s Black Box.

Here are his answers about Intelligent Design has never been “peer reviewed” and no data to support ID:

Court transcrip from Kitzmiller vs Dover case:
Q. Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?

A. No, I argued for it in my book. (excuse in red)

Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?

A. That's correct.

Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?

A. That is correct, yes.

Q. And it is, in fact, the case that in Darwin's Black Box, you didn't report any new data or original research?

A. I did not do so, but I did generate an attempt at an explanation. (again, excuses in red)

Q. Now you have written for peer reviewed scientific journals on subjects other than intelligent design, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And in those articles, you did report original research and data, at least in many of them, correct?

A. Yes.

the above transcript can be found here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html

His book isn’t science, it has never been peer-reviewed. Anyone can write to non-scientific publisher (his publisher was the Free Press, they don’t offer books that being “Peer Review“), including pseudoscience like Darwin’s Black Box. His book about Irreducible Complexity have no data from experiments, he admitted that when was being cross-examined. Making excuses that offered explanations in his book, don’t make it scientific evidence.

Excuses are not evidence. Excuses are simply unsubstantiated claims, and excuses don’t make it science, especially as he had no evidence, no experiments and therefore he has no data to support either his Irreducible Complexity, nor any for Intelligent Design.

And if you don’t understand that, you really have shoved head so far deep in the sand. You have allowed your religious belief to cloud your judgement.

 

[leroy]

I see that you are confused again. We may not verify every single scientific claim, but if we wanted to and had the talent we could verify any scientific claim. You do not appear to understand the difference between the two. Meanwhile when it comes to silly faith beliefs no one can verify them. That is why it is called "faith".

No disagreement; That is very interesting, but that doesn’t contradict any of my comments .

All I am saying is that at least sometimes, testimonies are evidence, for example the testimony of the author of a peer reviewed article counts as evidence.......... this is not suppose to be controvertial, nor complex, nor fishy

 

[Audie]

Show us you actually understand evolution, and then we won't have to keep pointing out that you don't understand evolution.
Until then, we're going to keep pointing out your misunderstandings.

Make that we-1

 

[leroy]

Because it is inaccurate and therefore less than honest. The work is reproduceable. Others have reproduced. With enough training I could reproduce it.

However that doesn’t changes the fact that *YOU* claim that there is a fusion because you read it in some source and you trust the testimony of the authors of that source.

Others have reproduced.

how do you know that? .... testimonies.........You claim that the experiments have been reproduced because of other testimonies.

With enough training I could reproduce it.

Maybe, but you would still have to trust in testimonies, like the testimony of thepeople that work in the laboratory, the testimony of your assistant,your suppliers, or the testimony of other authors from other papers that provided the basis of your experiments etc.


This is not hard………. All you have to do is say “yes Leroy sometimes testimonies are evidence ”

 

[Subduction Zone]

However that doesn’t changes the fact that *YOU* claim that there is a fusion because you read it in some source and you trust the testimony of the authors of that source.

And no, here you screwed up again because you refuse to understand the concept of evidence. The only reason that I can legitimately claim that there is only one interpretation is because only one side follows the scientific method, which consists first and foremost of constructing testable hypotheses. If one is too afraid to put one's idea into the form of a testable hypothesis there are clear consequences. The major one being is that by definition one has no evidence unless one has a testable hypothesis.

how do you know that? .... testimonies.........You claim that the experiments have been reproduced because of other testimonies.

No, peer reviewed work is much more than "testimonies". But I understand why you want to conflate your unsupported beliefs with actual rational beliefs. Just for fun try applying scientific standards to your religious beleifs.

Maybe, but you would still have to trust in testimonies, like the testimony of thepeople that work in the laboratory, the testimony of your assistant,your suppliers, or the testimony of other authors from other papers that provided the basis of your experiments etc.

No, testimonies is what you have.

This is not hard………. All you have to do is say “yes Leroy sometimes testimonies are evidence ”

No, now you are making the mistake of thinking that there is only one overarching "evidence". There is scientific evidence, there is historical evidence, there is legal evidence, all of those must meet certain standards. Testimonies rarely do and they are generally not reliable evidence. If you want to claim that a particular "testimony" is reliable the burden of proof is upon you. Peer review is a way of making sure that the work meets a minimal standard. And even then it is wrong quite often. Testimony almost never rises to that level. If you are talking about any book of the Bible it is pretty easy to show how that book does not even come close to that level.

 

[gnostic]

No disagreement; That is very interesting, but that doesn’t contradict any of my comments .

All I am saying is that at least sometimes, testimonies are evidence, for example the testimony of the author of a peer reviewed article counts as evidence.......... this is not suppose to be controvertial, nor complex, nor fishy

behe’s book was never peer reviewed, Leroy.

The Free Press isnt a peer-reviewed publisher. Yes, they may include reviewers, all publishers include reviewers, but not “Peer Review”.

Peer Review is where independent scientists not only read books or journal articles, they have to examine the DATA that come from physical evidence or from experiments: they do so, to find errors in any proposed scientific papers.

Without data, then Darwin’s Black Box don’t meet the requirements of Scientific Method and Peer Review. In fact, as Irreducible Complexity is unfalsifiable, it cannot even quantify as being a hypothesis.

You are being dishonest when you claimed that “the testimony of author of a peer reviewed article“, Irreducible Complexity has never been peer-reviewed as Behe admitted his works have never been peer-reviewed, because THERE ARE NO EXPERIMENTS & NO DATA.

You cannot seemed to grasp (* knock on wood *) that you cannot have any research submitted for Peer Review, if you don’t have any verifiable DATA, data from experiments or from evidence.

So such claim you are making, are baseless and false.

 

[leroy]

You really are sticking your head in the sand on this.

You really don’t understand that OBSERVATIONS mean “evidence” or “experiments”, and these OBSERVATIONS should include “information” about the properties of the observed phenomena, which would include - detections, quantities, measurements, compositions (eg chemical compositions, what they made of, etc), etc…these “information” are usually called DATA. So “data” are themselves evidence & observations.

Yes, but you didn’t do the observations nor the measurements yourself… why is this so hard to understand?

1 scientist make observations, experiments, measurements etc.

2 they publish a paper with their testimony of what they found (for example the result of the experiment)

3 you read the paper (the testimony)

4 you accept the paper (the testimony) as evidence for the conclusions polished in the article. (which is ok)

Which of these 4 points do you find so controversial and hard to accept?

Wow. You are really utterly clueless, Leroy.

The Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District case (2005) have both transcripts and the judge verdicts, have been made available to public - public domain - so any can read the court transcript. So we do know what the lawyers on both side (prosecutor & defendant lawyers), asking the questions, and the answers given by each parties, including witnesses and expert witnesses.

So the testimony of the person who made the transcript and the testimony of the judge and the testimony of the witnesses…………. Count as evidence that Behe said such and such

You know that behe said those things because you trust the testimony of these people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, but you didn’t do the observations nor the measurements yourself… why is this so hard to understand?

1 scientist make observations, experiments, measurements etc.

2 they publish a paper with their testimony of what they found (for example the result of the experiment)

3 you read the paper (the testimony)

4 you accept the paper (the testimony) as evidence for the conclusions polished in the article. (which is ok)

Which of these 4 points do you find so controversial and hard to accept?



So the testimony of the person who made the transcript and the testimony of the judge and the testimony of the witnesses…………. Count as evidence that Behe said such and such

You know that behe said those things because you trust the testimony of these people.

Wow! Massive conflation. No, a peer reviewed article is not "testimony". It is a detailed account of how one arrived at a specific conclusion. It is detailed enough so that others may accurately reproduce the work of the person that did the work and confirm it for themselves. Let's look at the closest that your Bible has for that sort of action. It claims that if one follows it and earnestly asks God to help them that he will. The problem with that is that there is no objective way to test if a person earnestly asked God. There do appear to be very many people that earnestly asked God for help and that help never came. It is not reliable. And a peer reviewed paper whose work was not reliable would be quickly refuted when that happened. The results of a peer reviewed paper have be able to be reliably reproduced.

 

[gnostic]

Maybe, but you would still have to trust in testimonies, like the testimony of thepeople that work in the laboratory, the testimony of your assistant,your suppliers, or the testimony of other authors from other papers that provided the basis of your experiments etc.

now, you are making up fiction.

Michael Behe, and Percival Davis & Dean H Kenyon (the two authors of - Of Pandas And People, which was subject of Kitzmiller & Dover trial) have never presented any evidence, experiments and data to support their bogus researches.

Without empirical observations (like data), then their works are just baseless opinions.

Observations = experiments & evidence & data​

No empirical observations & no tests, are equal to pseudoscience garbage.

 

[leroy]

And no, here you screwed up again because you refuse to understand the concept of evidence. The only reason that I can legitimately claim that there is only one interpretation is because only one side follows the scientific method, which consists first and foremost of constructing testable hypotheses. If one is too afraid to put one's idea into the form of a testable hypothesis there are clear consequences. The major one being is that by definition one has no evidence unless one has a testable hypothesis.


No, peer reviewed work is much more than "testimonies". But I understand why you want to conflate your unsupported beliefs with actual rational beliefs. Just for fun try applying scientific standards to your religious beleifs.

No, testimonies is what you have.

No, now you are making the mistake of thinking that there is only one overarching "evidence". There is scientific evidence, there is historical evidence, there is legal evidence, all of those must meet certain standards. Testimonies rarely do and they are generally not reliable evidence. If you want to claim that a particular "testimony" is reliable the burden of proof is upon you. Peer review is a way of making sure that the work meets a minimal standard. And even then it is wrong quite often. Testimony almost never rises to that level. If you are talking about any book of the Bible it is pretty easy to show how that book does not even come close to that level.

If you want to claim that a particular "testimony" is reliable the burden of proof is upon you.

Sure, so reliable testimonies, count as evidence (like the testimony of a scientist that reports his finding in a journal)……….any disagreement? (I hope not)………….. see this was really very simple

 

[leroy]

Wow! Massive conflation. No, a peer reviewed article is not "testimony". It is a detailed account of how one arrived at a specific conclusion. It is detailed enough so that others may accurately reproduce the work of the person that did the work and confirm it for themselves. Let's look at the closest that your Bible has for that sort of action. It claims that if one follows it and earnestly asks God to help them that he will. The problem with that is that there is no objective way to test if a person earnestly asked God. There do appear to be very many people that earnestly asked God for help and that help never came. It is not reliable. And a peer reviewed paper whose work was not reliable would be quickly refuted when that happened. The results of a peer reviewed paper have be able to be reliably reproduced.

Detailed accounts are by definoition testimonies

 

[gnostic]

Yes, but you didn’t do the observations nor the measurements yourself… why is this so hard to understand?

1 scientist make observations, experiments, measurements etc.

2 they publish a paper with their testimony of what they found (for example the result of the experiment)

3 you read the paper (the testimony)

4 you accept the paper (the testimony) as evidence for the conclusions polished in the article. (which is ok)

Which of these 4 points do you find so controversial and hard to accept?

Wow, you are like Michael Behe - two peas in a pod - when he cannot submit evidence & data to support his works, make up any excuses.

Scientists who want to submit their works with the prospects of turning hypotheses into scientific theories, must submit their data from evidence discovered or showed test results from experiments. Without the data, then the hypothesis isn’t even a ”hypothesis“, because to qualify models as being hypothesis, it must be falsifiable, which Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity are not falsifiable.

You are like Behe, you make up any excuse to prove your points, but such points are just opinions if you have no data.

Data can be reviewed, but Behe didn’t present any that support his book.

you are repeating his mistake, by thinking that explanation within his book counts as “evidence”. It doesn’t. Evidence and data are independent of any explanation; data and evidence will either verify or refute a research. Without them, it isn’t science.

Behe‘s Irreducible Complexity and his Darwin’s Black Box, have never been peer-reviewed, and because they don’t include data from any experiment or any evidence, then they are not science.

Behe has never done any tests, Leroy, so you are making up fairytale that Behe has data and evidence.

behe had even admitted as much that he has no evidence & data to support his works, when he was being cross-examined.

words alone, don’t make it science; experiment & evidence & data do. And almost 20 years after the trial, Behe still has none.

Are you going to imaginary fabricate the data for Behe?

 

[leroy]

now, you are making up fiction.

Michael Behe, and Percival Davis & Dean H Kenyon (the two authors of - Of Pandas And People, which was subject of Kitzmiller & Dover trial) have never presented any evidence, experiments and data to support their bogus researches.

Without empirical observations (like data), then their works are just baseless opinions.

Observations = experiments & evidence & data​

No empirical observations & no tests, are equal to pseudoscience garbage.

Maybe,

But what is this relevant.

All I am saying is that you know the results of the trial, because you trust in the testimonies of those who where there (you weren’t there)…