Irony of the evolutionary belief

[gnostic]

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.

I would like to add, that the theory have been verified by many different fields in biology (eg genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, microbiology, zoology, botany, modern taxonomy (clade taxonomy), etc), and biology-related fields (medicine, pathology, virology, paleontology, biostratigraphy, nuclear science (eg radiometric dating methods), etc).

plus, with all the studies in various fields, parts of Darwin’s original Natural Selection are outdated…natural selection has been corrected, amended, modified, updated and so on…the today’s updated Natural Selection is stronger than Darwin’s original version.

Darwin simply didn’t have the knowledge and technology of the last 50 years…he knew nothing about RNA & DNA, nothing about modern biochemistry & molecular biology, and so on.

DNA testing are much stronger evidence than fossils, as they can compare DNA of living organisms, and therefore living species.

For instance, brown bear species are actually closer to polar bear species, than brown bears to the black bear species. DNA analysis revealed that polar bears formed during the Quaternary Glaciation (the more recent Ice Ages), where the new species diverged from the sister species the brown bear population. The split occurred around 150,000 years ago, where generations of brown bears trapped in large regions covered in deep ice sheets…the brown bears have to adapt to changed environment of severe climate, that allowed them to survive in territories that have no summer seasons (so ice don’t melt) for thousands of years. They eventually became new species, bears that don’t hibernate.

likewise, that while hyenas appeared to resemble canine order & family, in appearance and in some of their behaviour patterns, their other behaviour patterns, and more importantly their DNA, are more biologically & closely related to the feline order. Meaning, the hyenas shared common ancestry with the feline families than with the canine families.

 

[leroy]

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

Yes but how do you know about this data ? Testimony

someone publishes the data (testimony), and you trust (with good reason) that the author is being accurate and realiable

All I am saying is that atleast sometimes testimonies count as evidence .... when you reed a peer reviewed article you are reading the testimony of the author on what experiments where done and what results where gotten .... we trust this testimonies mainly because

1 there where written by well informed people

2 in a contex where it hard to lie or make things up

3 we have confimation from other testimonies validating the experiments and results


I honestly dont see why you and your atheist friends (@Subduction Zone @Pogo @gnostic @TagliatelliMonster @F1fan find this so controversial

 

[leroy]

e, science builds on the concatenation of prior knowledge not any one observation or conclusion. It is not dependent on revealed knowledge like religion.

1 i agree

2 there is nothing relevant in the comment

3 non of my comments imply that I would disagree with that statement


So why mention it ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes but how do you know about this data ? Testimony

someone publishes the data (testimony), and you trust (with good reason) that the author is being accurate and realiable

All I am saying is that atleast sometimes testimonies count as evidence .... when you reed a peer reviewed article you are reading the testimony of the author on what experiments where done and what results where gotten .... we trust this testimonies mainly because

1 there where written by well informed people

2 in a contex where it hard to lie or make things up

3 we have confimation from other testimonies validating the experiments and results


I honestly dont see why you and your atheist friends (@Subduction Zone @Pogo @gnostic @TagliatelliMonster @F1fan find this so controversial

This error of yours has already been explained to you.

Been there, done that bought the T-shirt.

 

[leroy]

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.

Nobody is appealing to conspiracy theories

You also ignored my post where I explained in some cases I could repeat their work if I wanted to badly enough.

True but irrelevant, this is why you where ignored


It is still tue that atleast sometimes testimonies are evidence. An example would be peer reviewed articles

 

[leroy]

Testimonies? No. Science is conducted by experts who follow the scientific method, and they report their findings.

That is by definition a testimony

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

Each testimony falls or stands by its all merits.


I didn't say that all testimonies are good conclusive evidence, I said that SOME testimonies are. ...

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.

I am not challenging the results of science .

if there is some flaw in accepting the results of experts

Strawman


I have said many times that sometimes it is ok to trust testimonies

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I honestly dont see why you and your atheist friends (@Subduction Zone @Pogo @gnostic @TagliatelliMonster @F1fan find this so controversial

What is being rejected is the implication that the trust in science is as flimsy as trust in religious doctrine (faith), which is based in scripture (testimony about testimony). Science is correct in the main. We know that empirically. It works. It makes life longer, more functional (eyeglasses), safer (vaccines), more comfortable (air conditioning), easier (automobiles), and more interesting (international travel, electronic media). That tells you that its fundamental assumptions and its conclusions are valid.

 

[leroy]

i have read the transcript concerning Behe.

Yes and that transcript is a testimony

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.

Why is behe relevant?


My only point was that you know about the trail because of testimonies

Implying that atleast sometimes testimonies count as good evidence

 

[Pogo]

Wow, you are wrong in so many things and at some many levels that I don’t even know where to start .

I´l simply start with the most obvios mistake……………..but pay attention this is not supposed to be controversial, there are no hidden tramps nor semantic tricks……….. you are supposed to accept my next comment without any hesitation.

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

For example You *know* that probably there is a chromosomal fusion in the human genome because you read a paper (or a book, or an article or a youtube video) and you simply trust in the testimony of the author of that source.

You haven’t done the experiments yourself, all you have is their testimony…………… so by your standards you don’t have evidence for the chromosome fusion in the human genome because according to you testimonies are not evidence.



Well obviously some testimonies are more reliable than others, (some testimonies represent better evidence than others)

Obviously the testimony of a scientists on a claim related to his area of expertise and who has confirmation form the testimonies of his peers …… is much more valuable than the testimony of a crazy guy who claims that was kidnapped by allliens.

But Both are testimonies and by your standards none count as evidence.

The point is that the vast , vast , vast majority of scientific knowledge comes from testimonies, you simply trust the testimonies of these who made the experiments. (which is ok)

The conclusion is not “therefore science fails” the conclusion is “therefore your own standards fail”

All you have to do is acknowledge your mistake, and simply admit that testimonies (at least sometimes) count as evidence. Once you admit this obvious simple and uncontroversial fact I will proceed in correcting your other mistakes

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master——that's all.”

Ah yes, @leroy has mastered another word that means whatever he wants it to mean.

 

[leroy]

What is being rejected is the implication that the trust in science is as flimsy as trust in religious doctrine (faith),

Well that alleged implication is a result of your imagination (which is very telling BTW)


All I said was that atleast sometimes testimonies are good evidence (like the testimonies of scientists in peer review articles)

This was not suppuse to he controversial

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What is being rejected is the implication that the trust in science is as flimsy as trust in religious doctrine (faith), which is based in scripture (testimony about testimony). Science is correct in the main. We know that empirically. It works. It makes life longer, more functional (eyeglasses), safer (vaccines), more comfortable (air conditioning), easier (automobiles), and more interesting (international travel, electronic media). That tells you that its fundamental assumptions and its conclusions are valid.

Well that alleged implication is a result of your imagination (which is very telling BTW) All I said was that atleast sometimes testimonies are good evidence (like the testimonies of scientists in peer review articles)

You're still trying to usurp the reliability of scientific teaching to suggest that the second and third-hand accounts in scripture are also reliable. Words alone are not enough. There needs to be better evidence. The evidence for the validity of scientific "testimony" is that it works, not merely that somebody says something.

 

[F1fan]

That is by definition a testimony

It's not common usage. And given your negative attitude against science any out of the ordinary language you and other poorly informed people use is a red flag.

Each testimony falls or stands by its all merits.

And experts take it seriously and earned respect. You haven't.

I didn't say that all testimonies are good conclusive evidence, I said that SOME testimonies are. ...

Who cares what a non-exprt like you has to say about what experts report? We read what exports report and that is the definitive position of the science. Folks who have no expertise try to sabotage science, like yourself, look foolish.

I am not challenging the results of science .

Yes you are. All you have to do is defer to experts, yet your posts are rampant with some sort of non-expert dissent. The only fooled about your motives is you.

I have said many times that sometimes it is ok to trust testimonies

If you mean what science reports, we lay people have no reason NOT to trust what experts report. If there is an error or some new advances it is up to experts to correct the record. Non-experts are irrelevant.

 

[gnostic]

I honestly dont see why you and your atheist friends (@Subduction Zone @Pogo @gnostic @TagliatelliMonster @F1fan find this so controversial

Atheist friends?

sorry, but @metis, @Dan From Smithville , and @shunyadragon are not atheists, and I am very certain they too would disagree with you on your claims about scientific theories supported by verifiable evidence & data being the same as testimonies without evidence & without data from anyone.

They are not same.

You keep ignoring evidence and data that verified theories.

Testimonies without evidence, doesn’t mean the testimonies are true. Those who don’t have evidence & data, then there testimonies are unsubstantiated and unreliable...which is the case with every creationists’ claims and Intelligent Design advocates’ claims…they are not interested in evidence or facts, and they certainly not interested in natural sciences.

 

[leroy]

You're still trying to usurp the reliability of scientific teaching to suggest that the second and third-hand accounts in scripture are also reliable. Words alone are not enough. There needs to be better evidence. The evidence for the validity of scientific "testimony" is that it works, not merely that somebody says something.

I won't even try to guess your anti religious motivations for that comment.

All I said is that at least sometimes testimonies are evidence (being peer review articles an obvious example)


So ether explicitly agree or disagree with that comment

 

[leroy]

It's not common usage. And given your negative attitude against science any out of the ordinary language you and other poorly informed people use is a red flag.

And experts take it seriously and earned respect. You haven't.

Who cares what a non-exprt like you has to say about what experts report? We read what exports report and that is the definitive position of the science. Folks who have no expertise try to sabotage science, like yourself, look foolish.

Yes you are. All you have to do is defer to experts, yet your posts are rampant with some sort of non-expert dissent. The only fooled about your motives is you.

If you mean what science reports, we lay people have no reason NOT to trust what experts report. If there is an error or some new advances it is up to experts to correct the record. Non-experts are irrelevant.

You cant quote a single comment of me sabotaging science so quite your lies and dishonest accusations

If you mean what science reports, we lay people have no reason NOT to trust what experts report

I have said explicitly that we should trust what scientist and experts say....... Specially if other experts can corroborate it...... specially if the claims are made in a context where it is hard to lie o make things up

 

[leroy]

Atheist friends?

sorry, but @metis, @Dan From Smithville , and @shunyadragon are not atheists, and I am very certain they too would disagree with you on your claims about scientific theories supported by verifiable evidence & data being the same as testimonies without evidence & without data from anyone.

Stop making things up I never said that testimonies without evidence are the same as scientific theories

They are not same.

You keep ignoring evidence and data that verified theories.

Testimonies without evidence, doesn’t mean the testimonies are true. Those who don’t have evidence & data, then there testimonies are unsubstantiated and unreliable...which is the case with every creationists’ claims and Intelligent Design advocates’ claims…they are not interested in evidence or facts, and they certainly not interested in natural sciences.

Your anti creationist claims are irrelevant (but very telling)


All I said is that at least sometimes testimonies are evidence (peer review articles being an obvious example)


So
1 ether agree with that statement and apologize for misrepresenting my view

Or

2 disagree and reject peer review articles.


Or

3 keep lying and keep making things up about me


Sadly you will pick option 3 .... Shame on you

 

[Pogo]

I won't even try to guess your anti religious motivations for that comment.

All I said is that at least sometimes testimonies are evidence (being peer review articles an obvious example)


So ether explicitly agree or disagree with that comment

You are intentionally equivocating on the word testimony and it's multiple definitions to allow yourself to pretend that you have an argument.
While colloquially testimony could be used to describe a scientific arguments with data, methods and materials that allows anyone interested to repeat the observation that is not how the word is used in English, what you have done is set up a false equivalency. This is ignorant or dishonest and when repeated dishonesty is more likely.

A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges." False equivalence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I won't even try to guess your anti religious motivations for that comment.

I'm not antireligious per se, but I am repulsed by the dishonesty of creationist apologetics.

All I said is that at least sometimes testimonies are evidence (being peer review articles an obvious example). So ether explicitly agree or disagree with that comment

I don't know all of what you have said, but I know that that is NOT your larger point. You want to make all "testimony" equivalent, and this is just one step along that path.

All testimony is evidence, but in some cases, no more than the fact that somebody expressed that opinion. The Bible is testimony to the fact that somebody wrote all of those words, not that any of them are correct.

And Christianity has a millennia-long record of being both wrong about reality and willing to lie, so there is no reason to believe anything at all from scripture or a creationist. And science has the opposite relationship with mankind. Character matters, too. Science has it, creationists don't. And scientists, unlike religious apologists, have a track record of success and a method for weeding out errors that justify looking for answers there.

 

[leroy]

You are intentionally equivocating on the word testimony and it's multiple definitions to allow yourself to pretend that you have an argument.
While colloquially testimony could be used to describe a scientific arguments with data, methods and materials that allows anyone interested to repeat the observation that is not how the word is used in English, what you have done is set up a false equivalency. This is ignorant or dishonest and when repeated dishonesty is more likely.

A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges." False equivalence.

Nobody is comparing apples and oranges ether support your accusation (quote my comments where is did it)


Or apologize for your false accusations

 

[leroy]

I'm not antireligious per se, but I am repulsed by the dishonesty of creationist apologetics.

I don't know all of what you have said, but I know that that is NOT your larger point. You want to make all "testimony" equivalent, and this is just one step along that path.

Not all testimonies are equivalent, I have said that multiple times


So we unless you clarify the opposite, I will assume that you agree that at least some testimonies are evidence.



The implication (and my hidden agenda) is that you can no longer repeat the meme of "testimonies are not evidence" ..... But rather you would have to show and justify that the particular testimony is not evidence (which shouldn't be hard)

but in some cases, no more than the fact that somebody expressed that opinion. The Bible is testimony to the fact that somebody wrote all of those words, not that any of them are correct.

And Christianity has a millennia-long record of being both wrong about reality and willing to lie, so there is no reason to believe anything at all from scripture or a creationist. And science has the opposite relationship with mankind. Character matters, too. Science has it, creationists don't. And scientists, unlike religious apologists, have a track record of success and a method for weeding out errors that justify looking for answers there.

Your hate towards Christianity and creationism is telling and very interesting.... But irrelevant