Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Pogo]

Make an honest effort and try to understand my point, I promise it is not so hard.

Nobody is questioning the validity of the scientific method; my only point is that YOU PERSONALLY in most of the cases can only know something about science, because you trust in the testimonies of others. You trust in the testimonies of the authors of the papers (books, articles ...), and trust that they really did made the experiments and really got the results they claim they got.

Which is ok, there is nothing wrong with trusting in a testimony, especially if this testimony comes from a well-informed person whose peers can confirm it.

The mistake is to say that testimonies are not evidence (because at least sometimes they clearly are)

you miss the point intentionally.
I personally can replicate any observation.
it is not about testimony.

 

[leroy]

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?

why do you keep mentioning Behe adn inteligent design?

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.

which is why you trust (with good reason) in the testimony of a scientists who report his findings in a Journal.......................why is this so hard to understand?

 

[leroy]

you miss the point intentionally.
I personally can replicate any observation.
it is not about testimony.

But usually you don’t replicate any observation

Usually you simply trust in the testimony of those who did the experiments (which is ok)

All I am saying is that sometimes it is ok and rational to trust testimonies. Like for example the testimonies of the authors of the scientific papers)

Why do you find this so controversial?

...

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Yes, but peer reviewed articles are much more than testimony. If you keep making that error you will just be corrected. You cannot demand an explanation any longer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Detailed accounts are by definoition testimonies

Nope. Testimonies often have detailed accounts. You are simply repeating your errors now and you know it.

And you are not fooling anyone. You are going to try to pull off an equivocation fallacy again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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)…

No, we trust the side of rational thinking since their claims can be checked and confirmed. Creationists cannot claim that same.

 

[leroy]

Yes, but peer reviewed articles are much more than testimony.

Yes but you only have access to the testimonies


You accept the resoults reported in articles, because you trust in the testimonies of those who wrote the paper.

 

[leroy]

No, we trust the side of rational thinking since their claims can be checked and confirmed. Creationists cannot claim that same.

And how do you even know which claims are made by each side?...........answer “testimonies”

 

[Pogo]

Make an honest effort and try to understand my point, I promise it is not so hard.

Nobody is questioning the validity of the scientific method; my only point is that YOU PERSONALLY in most of the cases can only know something about science, because you trust in the testimonies of others. You trust in the testimonies of the authors of the papers (books, articles ...), and trust that they really did made the experiments and really got the results they claim they got.

Which is ok, there is nothing wrong with trusting in a testimony, especially if this testimony comes from a well-informed person whose peers can confirm it.

The mistake is to say that testimonies are not evidence (because at least sometimes they clearly are)

NO, you totally missed the point. Science is not about "testimony" of others, but what can be demonstrated, if I do the same thing. It is specifically not revealed knowledge but demonstrated knowledge. You obviously have never taken any higher level courses. LOL

 

[Pogo]

Yes but you only have access to the testimonies


You accept the resoults reported in articles, because you trust in the testimonies of those who wrote the paper.

NO, the articles only give the information to repeat their method for others to replicate the information that lead to their conclusion. Your ignorance is logic is not doing you well.

 

[Pogo]

But usually you don’t replicate any observation

Usually you simply trust in the testimony of those who did the experiments (which is ok)

All I am saying is that sometimes it is ok and rational to trust testimonies. Like for example the testimonies of the authors of the scientific papers)

Why do you find this so controversial?

Usually I Don"t need to because the pattern is built on prior observations and thus your pathetic argument is just that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evolution is a dying concept that is more focused on opinions and beliefs rather than facts.

The theory has been demonstrated to be correct beyond reasonable doubt, but not to those who haven't learned it. There is no debate about the topic. Creationists dissent, but they do not debate, which requires supporting one's claims and contradicting the claims of others. Contradiction is not mere dissent. It requires counterargument (rebuttal, falsification).

The creationist's doubt is unreasonable, or more properly, unreasoned.

Macro-evolution relies on a belief system whether it acknowledges this or not much like religion.

That is incorrect. Evolutionary theory is based in reason applied to evidence. Religion uses neither to come up with its beliefs.

It would be great to see a definition. (I doubt, however, you will get one.)

It would be great if any of you creationists understood and remembered what has been written to you. Evidence is the noun form of the adjective evident, as in evident to the senses. What it signifies requires the application of valid reason to this evidence.

Things like high consciousness or even complex brains dont seem to have a survival value and therefore not expectedtoevolve

High consciousness? Did you mean intellect?

You don't seem to understand what competitive advantage is or what confers it. The fact of mental acumen conferring a competitive advantage is seen throughout the animal kingdom. Predators are more intelligent than herbivores. Predators that hunt collectively are more intelligent than those that hunt alone. In man, where we find intellect (symbolic thought) as well as intelligence (problem solving), we add cultural evolution, where education and training confer competitive advantages in the struggle to acquire the desirable (a safe, comfortable, satisfying existence) while avoiding or minimizing the undesirable (being relatively free from privation and dyphorias like anxiety and loneliness).

What I tried to say is that the brain is complex beyond necessity

Is that part of an argument against evolution? Yes, we know. Animals with far less brainpower survive, too.

how do you know that the data is measurable, quantifiable, verifiable, demonstrable?

By measuring, quantifying, verifying and demonstrating it.

Yes almost everything you know form science comes from testimonies………..testimonies is nearly all you have.

Nope. Evidence.

• How do I know that the science behind sending a man to the moon and back is valid? Not from testimony. The missions were successes. That's evidence.
• How do I know that the Covid vaccines work? Not from testimony. From morbidity and mortality data comparing the vaccinated with the unvaccinated. That's also evidence.
• How do I know about human chromosome 2 and its significance? Not from testimony. I've seen the magnified chromosome and its distribution of telomeres, centromeres, and its banding patterns. Guess what that is (Hint: not testimony)

the adaptive capacity of animals is not what evolutionists believe.

How would you know either what the adaptive capacity of animals is or what "evolutionists" believe without ever learning about either?

I have no intention of dwelling on imaginary scenarios.

You're a Christian creationist. Much of your waking life is spent dwelling on imaginary scenarios, as when praying, reading scripture, or hearing a sermon.

My debate is about reasoning about ideas

Please stop. You don't debate and your ideas are flawed. Worse, you don't learn despite the attention of multiple gifted tutors donating their time and expertise to you.

 

[Pogo]

But usually you don’t replicate any observation

Usually you simply trust in the testimony of those who did the experiments (which is ok)

All I am saying is that sometimes it is ok and rational to trust testimonies. Like for example the testimonies of the authors of the scientific papers)

Why do you find this so controversial?

...

because you have no point here, science builds on the concatenation of prior knowledge not any one observation or conclusion. It is not dependent on revealed knowledge like religion.

 

[Pogo]

You have obviously never done any sort of higher educational level of physics chemistry or any science. These sorts of demonstrations are de rigueur for even average high schools .

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes but you only have access to the testimonies


You accept the resoults reported in articles, because you trust in the testimonies of those who wrote the paper.

Oh my, now you are moving into conspiracy theory territory. You also ignored my post where I explained in some cases I could repeat their work if I wanted to badly enough.

And how do you even know which claims are made by each side?...........answer “testimonies”

Nope, I just do not have to believe in conspiracy theories.

 

[Pogo]

Oh my, now you are moving into conspiracy theory territory. You also ignored my post where I explained in some cases I could repeat their work if I wanted to badly enough.

Nope, I just do not have to believe in conspiracy theories.

Even more clueless than the last time around. LOL

 

[McBell]

Even more clueless than the last time around. LOL

It is my opinion that it not more cluelessness than last time.
It is more desperation.

 

[F1fan]

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.

Testimonies? No. Science is conducted by experts who follow the scientific method, and they report their findings. We trust the system that has thus far shown its work, and shown itself to be highly accurate and reliable.

Contrast with religion which has no standard, and can assume and assert anything it wants, regardless of being contrary to fact and knowledge.

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


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)

Here are examples of you challenging the results in science, and thus scientists. And you admit to having no expertise. You even phrase your challenges to others who accept science and knowledge as trusting testimonies, as if there is some flaw in accepting the results of experts.

 

[gnostic]

why do you keep mentioning Behe adn inteligent design?


which is why you trust (with good reason) in the testimony of a scientists who report his findings in a Journal.......................why is this so hard to understand?

It is a comparison between Evolution and Intelligent Design.

Evolution have abundance of evidence from numbers of different biology-related fields….

It is not just study of fossils.

The strongest evidence are comparison of living species, especially through DNA testing, analysis & comparison.

DNA comparison of species, can give fairly precise estimates of where the divergence of species were likely to occur.

For instance, when the divergence between brown bear and polar bear.

But getting back to your question…

…I recalled you have advocated & defended Intelligent Design. In term, of qualification, Michael Behe has the highest qualification that are related to biology, as he qualified biochemist, if you were to compare him against other leading ID believers, eg Phillip E Johnson (law) & Stephen Meyer (geology), who are cofounders of Intelligent Design, among other members of Discovery Institute.

As I said, you have supported Intelligent Design in past threads. Are you not follower of ID? Or has your stance changed?

 

[gnostic]

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)…

i have read the transcript concerning Behe. I don’t need to be there. I just need to read days 11 & 12 of the trial.

Whats wrong? Can’t you read?

I find it amusing that Behe make up excuses for his shortcomings, by using apologetic tactics, a common flaw among creationists.

Testimonies without evidence & data to back up claims, don’t make it science or factual. Behe was never factual.

Plus, Behe wanted to downgrade the standards of Scientific Method & Peer Review, by skipping them altogether, like he has, publishing his Darwin’s Black Box, in a non-science & non-Peer Review publisher like the Free Press, so any pseudoscience & new age garbage can be consider factual.

Any explanation in a new hypothesis or existing scientific theory (eg introducing new model to existing theory - like Genetic Drift & Genetic Hitchhiking have expanded Evolution as new mechanisms), would have to be tested.

The tests would have to be either through discovering evidence through fieldwork or performing experiments, where scientist(s) can controlled some of the variables.

The more tests you have, the more precise are the conclusions for new hypotheses or existing theories. So, an experiment must be repeatable and reproducible, so that independent scientists can verify the original finding, or refute the explanatory & predictive models. Likewise, the more independent evidence scientists have, the empirical evidence will either refute or verify existing theory or new hypothesis.

Data would be acquired through more observations of the evidence or experiments, that will provide information a out physical properties of evidence, that can be quantified, measured (eg dimensions of the specimen, its mass, density, frequency & wavelength, etc), analysed, etc. Tests can also include finding out WHAT each evidence are made of (eg chemical composition), and HOW each work (thus the mechanism).

Data are essential for every hypotheses or for every theories. So data should be treated like evidence, and the data can & will either refute or verify hypothesis or existing theory.

If the observations (evidence, experiments & data) refuted a hypothesis, then it can be discarded because the hypothesis has failed, because the explanations & predictions were flawed or incorrect.

If the observations verified the hypothesis, then it can be submitted for Peer Review, where independent scientists can analyze both hypothesis and records of data, and if necessary reproduce the test or experiment, independently.

Peer Reviews aren’t about rubber-stamping any new hypothesis; they are there rigorously examined the models and the data, trying to find errors, anomalies, flaws in the models of a hypothesis or in the data themselves.

Have you ask why Michael Behe have never submitted his Irreducible Complexity for Peer Review? Why William Dembski never submitted Specified Complexity for Peer Review?

They published their works in non-peer-reviewed publishers, so they can hide the facts that neither men have no evidence, no experiments, no original researches and NO DATA, to support their pseudoscience concepts. They feared independent scientists rejecting their works, if they found errors in their papers, and finding no verifiable data.

They are both dishonest men, who don’t want anyone to refute their works.

Btw, their works are funded by the Discovery Institute, and Behe get lot more money selling his worthless unscientific books than he would have, had he gone through proper channels.