Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Dan From Smithville]

One week ago I would have believed you...... But I was told by you atheist friends that testimonies are not evidence..... So apparently there is no evidence that you have written any papers

I am not, nor have I ever been an atheist. But I do appreciate their honesty, knowledge and insight regarding science and many other subjects. They don't need to believe like I do and I do not have to lack belief as they do in order to accept the evidence, explanations and conclusions of science.

Like anyone, atheists have bias, but in regards to science, they have much fewer biases than those trying to force evidence to fit a position after the fact.

I'm not sure what may have been meant by testimony not being evidence, but it is more correctly a claim giving the subjective nature of testimony and the lack of available means to test it. It would amount to anecdotal evidence at best. Something that may be correct, but could also be incorrect. Or correct, but unimportant or unrelated to the topic of discussion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just a friendly piece of advice to all participants. I enjoy reading and participating in these threads as I am sure all of you do. I'd like it to stay that way. Please keep this civil and focus on the validity of statements and claims and away from comments that might be seen as personal.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Can a trait have a benefit that wasn't the initial condition selected by the environment? Can a trait result that has broader benefit than the narrow confines of its original selection? Can multiple environmental factors combine in the impact on selection and the fixation of traits that a very plastic and broad in their application?

Human culture is derived from our cognitive ability, but that ability doesn't have to have been selected so that culture could exist. There isn't any evidence for that. But there is for sociality that is a beneficial condition that also acts as a selection pressure. And sociality can be expressed in many forms.

 

[YoursTrue]

For one's reading perusal: Model predicts 'religiosity gene' will dominate society.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have no doubt that you are interested in nature and in science. But you have personal biases that you entertain with a vigorous tenacity and little if any serious scholarship from what I have seen. All your efforts here are to twist scientific explanations and conclusions to fit your personal religious views. Understandably, a typical effort from a creationist position that is a priori correct by fiat, but not logically or scientifically valid.

Have you considered taking some sort of adult education class in basic science? I'd recommend something on the study of logic as well. I think you might enjoy it and your understanding and knowledge in these debates and discussions would benefit.

Just a thought for a practical next step.

You just wrote about keeping things civil. The discussion among those here has not been too civil, and that includes snipes and snide remarks thought to be clever or funny by some of those on the forum. And instead of explaining things, some people just revert to what the other one said, take a course, etc.

 

[shunyadragon]

You just wrote about keeping things civil. The discussion among those here has not been too civil, and that includes snipes and snide remarks thought to be clever or funny by some of those on the forum. And instead of explaining things, some people just revert to what the other one said, take a course, etc.

The education issue is very real and up front, and not snipes, because you make many false statements that do not reflect any knowledge of basic science.

 

[YoursTrue]

The education issue is very real and up front, and not snipes, because you make many false statements that do not reflect any knowledge of basic science.

I may not use the right terms, but, as others have expressed, you and those with you do not explain yourselves. Rather you just say we're ignorant, need education, we're wrong, and so forth. All very bad arguments. As far as I am concerned, obviously not as far as you and some others are concerned. You may cite what scientists say, but even they know their theories can change.

 

[blü 2]

You just wrote about keeping things civil. The discussion among those here has not been too civil, and that includes snipes and snide remarks thought to be clever or funny by some of those on the forum. And instead of explaining things, some people just revert to what the other one said, take a course, etc.

What do you consider uncivil?

The invitation to understand what your colloquists are actually saying to you?

Oliver Cromwell famously said, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."

It's something those engaged in scientific research do all the time. There are no absolute statements outside of this sentence.

For example, the bjble can't be absolutely true, if for no other reason than it not infrequently contradicts itself. I suggest that there's a sense in which it's dishonest to try to rationalize those contradictions away instead of frankly acknowledging them.

What's you reasoned and honest view of what I've said above?

 

[YoursTrue]

The education issue is very real and up front, and not snipes, because you make many false statements that do not reflect any knowledge of basic science.

P.S. I wasn't necessarily saying you speak in snipes. Although you do not explain yourself well, it appears you just say those that do not agree with your take in general are not well educated. While you may consider that an argument, I do not. But! it's all ok as far as I am concerned at this point, and I believe the God I have faith in will settle these matters.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just my intuition, I don’t claim to have empirical evidence for it.

Ok. I reject your bare claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You didn’t answer my question.

I did. You just didn't like the answer.

Should your testimony of you claiming be a father be considered “evidence”?

No. Claims aren't evidence. Claims require evidence.

Is it rational for me if I trust in your testimony?

You could for the sake of argument assume I'm telling the truth. It's not an improbable claim. Many people are fathers, there's nothing extra-ordinary about it.

But I could be lying and you have no way to find out. You don't know me, you don't even know my real name,...
So even IF you have the ability to access certain records to verify if I have children, you couldn't, because you have no starting point.

Now contrast that with a scientific paper. You COULD verify those. And if you don't have the ability to do so (don't have the required knowledge, equipment, etc), then you COULD still acquire those. Even if it's hard work.

But you can't do that with what normal people mean when they use the word "testimony".
You can't do that with "I saw a monster yesterday".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Wow, that is radical

Yeah, what an amazing extremist idea that claims aren't evidence of themselves and actually require independent evidence for verification....

What a wild extremist radical idea that is............

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I may not use the right terms, but, as others have expressed, you and those with you do not explain yourselves. Rather you just say we're ignorant, need education, we're wrong, and so forth.

It is true that many a time people tell you that you are uneducated in these matters and are ignorant concerning these fields.
I know I do. Here's the thing: it's almost always followed by "and here's why...." followed by a clear explanation.

You ignoring those explanations doesn't mean they weren't given.

For example, how many times have I explained to you your error when you say things like "...but they remain gorillas"?
How many times have I pointed it out to you?
How many times have clearly explained in detail how speciation is a vertical process, how species never outgrow their ancestry, how speciation always results in sub-species which remain within the clade of their ancestry?

And more importantly, how many times have you simply ignored those explanations only to repeat the same error some time later? Sometimes even within the next few posts on the same page of the thread?


You do not get to say that we "don't explain ourselves". We DO. You just ignore it. Which, ironically, is one of the reasons why you remain in seemingly perpetual ignorance.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You just wrote about keeping things civil. The discussion among those here has not been too civil, and that includes snipes and snide remarks thought to be clever or funny by some of those on the forum. And instead of explaining things, some people just revert to what the other one said, take a course, etc.

Encouraging others with an interest in a subject, but obvious ignorance of it is not uncivil. And the evidence supports that the use of snark and snide comments is not one-sided.

The evidence indicates that explanations have been routinely offered and provided in the face of continual rejection of those explanations since before I joined in these particular debates and discussions. The recommendation to learn is offered in reference to the fact that those explanations are widely available for those truly interested and in venues where they can properly be learned rather than demanding a four year degree from a few forum posts.

I expect that a civil person would not hound others for months demanding things that are irrelevant to the topic of discussion and with an obvious unspoken agenda behind that hounding.

In a very civil way, that is all I have to say in response to you.

 

[Mock Turtle]

For one's reading perusal: Model predicts 'religiosity gene' will dominate society.

On the other hand, just as America came about from Europeans emigrating to form new societies, perhaps the USA will be overcome by the second wave (of non-religiousness) given that Europeans seemingly are the ones less likely to be religious - unless affected by immigration. With the rest of the world following on, even if lagging by decades or centuries.

 

[leroy]

A research paper is not a testimony. And for the reason's I stated, that you haven't refuted and merely ignored and hand-waved away. You can keep repeating it like a mantra, but that won't magically make you right and cause research reports to suddenly become testimonies.

By your attempted redefinition of the word, every written work becomes a testimony and the meaning of testimony becomes useless. How do you not understand that? I think you do. I think the intent here is do exactly as everyone else has sussed from your efforts. Reduce science down to baseless claims.

By the way, I've actually repeated work from research papers and written papers on my own original work. It is part of my job. What you got?

How is anyone supposed to take this seriously when you don't trust the work of scientists and reject most of it.

I said that it. Don't you know who you are responding to? What would be additional support of a testimony? More testimonies. If there is additional evidence, then you really don't need testimony. You'd go with the actual evidence that can be verified, validated and tested.

I've come to expect this sort of bait and switch, so my acceptance or rejection of this specific statement has no meaning in the discussion. You have claimed that science reports are testimonies. Changing that after all this time isn't going to fly. Scientific papers are not testimonies and you are now aware of this having just agreed that those papers are not testimonies.

I'm done.

well what can I say.......

First .....I still don't see why Isn't the report of a scientist in a journal a testimony.

The author makes his experiment (gets confirmation from his peers) and reports his results in a paper, how Isn't this a testimony? ..... What part of the definition of "testimony" excludes scientific reports in scientific papers?


Second... I don't understand why you treat testimony in such a degrading way ...as if calling an article a testimony would be an insult. .... I guess my question is what do you understand with the word "testimony" why is it a denigrating term, why are scientific reports excluded in that definition?

Have you considered taking some sort of adult education class in basic science? I'd recommend something on the study of logic as well. I think you might enjoy it and your understanding and knowledge in these debates and discussions would benefit.

Why this arrogant tone? Worst case scenario I had a vocabulary mistake with the term testimony.... I haven't made any scientific nor logical mistakes.

The way I see it, testimony simply means what other people say / report , this definition doesn't exclude well supported and well documented reports .... But if I wrong I'm wrong.... Just don't expect me to acknowledge that I am wrong just because you say so.(You have to support it)

1 you have to show that my definition is wrong

2 provide your own definition

3 show that the definition is correct

4 show that scientific reports reported in journals are excluded in that definition.

 

[F1fan]

well what can I say.......

First .....I still don't see why Isn't the report of a scientist in a journal a testimony.

Because report is a more accurate word. Testimonies tend to be personal whereas report is objective.

The real question is why you insist on using unusual and inaccurate wording. Language is a sort of social contract, the definitions come about through the evolution of usage and dictionaries will update entries to expand definitions. But there has to be some sort of standard of common usage for a word, and new meanings, to be accepted. You have a habit of using odd wording that is disruptive. I think I asked you if English was your first language and that was because of your odd word usage.

The author makes his experiment (gets confirmation from his peers) and reports his results in a paper, how Isn't this a testimony? ..... What part of the definition of "testimony" excludes scientific reports in scientific papers?

The common use is report. Just use it. What is your motive to prefer an inaccurate word?

Second... I don't understand why you treat testimony in such a degrading way ...as if calling an article a testimony would be an insult. .... I guess my question is what do you understand with the word "testimony" why is it a denigrating term, why are scientific reports excluded in that definition?

It's the wrong word. Just use correct language. Is there a problem that you don't want to?

Why this arrogant tone? Worst case scenario I had a vocabulary mistake with the term testimony.... I haven't made any scientific nor logical mistakes.

What was that about arrogant?

The way I see it, testimony simply means what other people say / report , this definition doesn't exclude well supported and well documented reports .... But if I wrong I'm wrong.... Just don't expect me to acknowledge that I am wrong just because you say so.(You have to support it)

1 you have to show that my definition is wrong

2 provide your own definition

3 show that the definition is correct

4 show that scientific reports reported in journals are excluded in that definition.

Just use the correct language. Why do you have to fight and defend being wrong?

 

[leroy]

I did. You just didn't like the answer.



No. Claims aren't evidence. Claims require evidence.


You could for the sake of argument assume I'm telling the truth. It's not an improbable claim. Many people are fathers, there's nothing extra-ordinary about it.

But I could be lying and you have no way to find out.

You are confusing evidence with “absolute and undeniable proof” …… I am not saying that I have absolute proof of you being a father , but I do have evidence (your testimony)

The hypothesis : “You are a father “ became more likely to be true given your testimony, than before such testimony ……. Therefore your testimony is evidence.

In other words you testimony increased the probability of the hypothesis being true, therefore it is evidence.

But not only that, I would say that your testimony is strong evidence because:

1 you are a well informed person (you are in a position to know whether if you yourself are a father or not)

2 you made the testimony in a context where lies are improbable ¿why would you lie?

3 the intrinsic probability of the hypothesis is not too low (many persons fathers)

4 there is nothing that contradicts the hypothesis

5 any alternative hypothesis is demonstrably less likely to be true (unless new evidence comes in)

Now contrast that with a scientific paper. You COULD verify those. And if you don't have the ability to do so (don't have the required knowledge, equipment, etc), then you COULD still acquire those. Even if it's hard work.

I am confused, so the paper is not evidence until I personally verify the information by doing the experiments myself? Is that what you are saying? (obviously not)……. But I don’t get your point

you don't even know my real name,...

By your logic, I don’t know anybody´s name, all I have is testimonies of people claiming that their names are John, Peter, or Marry. …. ¿do you see the absurdity of your position?

Or perhaps what you are saying is:

1 calims that are impossible to verify are just claims (not evidce)

2 but if one could in principle verify that claim, then it suddenly becomes evidence, even if nobody actually verfies the claim

Obviously this is absurd and I wouldn’t accuse you form making such a ridiculous claim…. But it really seems that this is what you are saying

Note the question marks in the comment….. I am asking honest questions about your claims

But you can't do that with what normal people mean when they use the word "testimony".
You can't do that with "I saw a monster yesterday".

Well with testimony I mean “what other people say or report” nothing in that definition excludes good and well supported scientific reports…………… do normal people mean something different with the term testimony?............. it´s an honest question what do normal people mean with testimony, and why are scientific reports excluded in that definition ?

 

[leroy]

Because report is a more accurate word. Testimonies tend to be personal whereas report is objective.

The real question is why you insist on using unusual and inaccurate wording. Language is a sort of social contract, the definitions come about through the evolution of usage and dictionaries will update entries to expand definitions. But there has to be some sort of standard of common usage for a word, and new meanings, to be accepted. You have a habit of using odd wording that is disruptive. I think I asked you if English was your first language and that was because of your odd word usage.

The common use is report. Just use it. What is your motive to prefer an inaccurate word?

It's the wrong word. Just use correct language. Is there a problem that you don't want to?

What was that about arrogant?

Just use the correct language. Why do you have to fight and defend being wrong?

Well I was not aware of the fact that testimony necessarily (or almost always) means a subjective and unverified claim……….and quite frankly it seems to me that you are making this up because the alternative is to admit that I have always been correct.

The good news is that we are talking about testable and falsifiable stuff…………… we could find a random sample of sentences that uses the term “testimony” if we find out that in 90%+ cases testimony means “subjective and unverified” I would be wrong……. if we find out that in a relevant portion say 10% or more the word testimony refers to objective and verifiable claim……….I would be correct.

Do you accept this methodology?

If we run the test and happens to be the case that I am correct, would you make a comment admitting that I was correct?

 

[Pogo]

You are confusing evidence with “absolute and undeniable proof” …… I am not saying that I have absolute proof of you being a father , but I do have evidence (your testimony)

The hypothesis : “You are a father “ became more likely to be true given your testimony, than before such testimony ……. Therefore your testimony is evidence.

In other words you testimony increased the probability of the hypothesis being true, therefore it is evidence.

But not only that, I would say that your testimony is strong evidence because:

1 you are a well informed person (you are in a position to know whether if you yourself are a father or not)

2 you made the testimony in a context where lies are improbable ¿why would you lie?

3 the intrinsic probability of the hypothesis is not too low (many persons fathers)

4 there is nothing that contradicts the hypothesis

5 any alternative hypothesis is demonstrably less likely to be true (unless new evidence comes in)




I am confused, so the paper is not evidence until I personally verify the information by doing the experiments myself? Is that what you are saying? (obviously not)……. But I don’t get your point





By your logic, I don’t know anybody´s name, all I have is testimonies of people claiming that their names are John, Peter, or Marry. …. ¿do you see the absurdity of your position?

Or perhaps what you are saying is:

1 calims that are impossible to verify are just claims (not evidce)

2 but if one could in principle verify that claim, then it suddenly becomes evidence, even if nobody actually verfies the claim

Obviously this is absurd and I wouldn’t accuse you form making such a ridiculous claim…. But it really seems that this is what you are saying

Note the question marks in the comment….. I am asking honest questions about your claims



Well with testimony I mean “what other people say or report” nothing in that definition excludes good and well supported scientific reports…………… do normal people mean something different with the term testimony?............. it´s an honest question what do normal people mean with testimony, and why are scientific reports excluded in that definition ?

Language is a mutually agreed upon set of conventions, not a set of rules handed down in a book.
Insisting on using a word in a manner inconsistent with the normal usage in a given field is not something to be proud of and marks one as someone to be dismissed. Doubling down as you do then gets you marked as arrogant.
You are now at the point that if you ever had any intention of having a productive conversation you have squandered the good will of everyone here.
All because you seem to lack the humility to actually listen to others. Your loss.