Proof of evolution -at last-

[Valjean]

I understand that the ToE says it takes a long time for different forms to evolve. A real long time with no genetic proof of any sort, only conjecture. The intermediate forms are not there in reality. In theory, yes, but not really in reality. However, and it's a big however, bats remain bats, whether they're blind or not, same with fishes. There is no proof absolutely that dinosaurs 'become,' or rather evolved to birds.

I understand that the ToE says it takes a long time for different forms to evolve. A real long time with no genetic proof of any sort, only conjecture. The intermediate forms are not there in reality. In theory, yes, but not really in reality. However, and it's a big however, bats remain bats, whether they're blind or not, same with fishes. There is no proof absolutely that dinosaurs 'become,' or rather evolved to birds.

Why do you keep talking about proof? It's exasperating. We're not talking about mathematics.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you keep talking about proof? It's exasperating. We're not talking about mathematics.

That's right, with mathematics there is proof because of evidence that 1 + 1 = 2. But with evolution there is no proof that because something that looks like a dinosaur fossil means that the animal became a bird.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

with evolution there is no proof that because something that looks like a dinosaur fossil means that the animal became a bird.

Proof is not science's (or my or your) standard for belief. When you show that you don't understand that - when you imply that the theory should not be accepted until it is proven - you show a lack of understanding of what science is, which undermines your credibility.

I recently posted these words on this thread which I think are applicable here, too:

"I assure you that as soon as a person knowledgeable about the science and the principles of critical thought sees a comment like any of these, he loses interest in the discussion except perhaps to correct the errors of fact and identify the logical fallacies. And this is perfectly reasonable. How much stock are you going to put in the opinions on Christianity from somebody who attributes the global flood of Genesis to Satan testing Noah's willingness to slay a son, or says that Sodom and Gomorrah were a couple of kids thrown out of a garden? When somebody makes mistakes as fundamental as those, you stop talking their opinions on your religion seriously, right? This is the same as that. Tell me that evolution is only theory and not proven and you've immediately disqualified yourself as a collocutor to take seriously in the same way as the guy who screws up the scriptures. Incidentally, that's two mistakes, not one, and the mistakes are not that the theory of evolution is a theory (it is) or that the theory isn't proven (it isn't and never will be, unless by proof one means supported beyond reasonable doubt, which is presently the case)."

A real long time with no genetic proof of any sort, only conjecture. The intermediate forms are not there in reality. In theory, yes, but not really in reality. However, and it's a big however, bats remain bats, whether they're blind or not, same with fishes. There is no proof absolutely that dinosaurs 'become,' or rather evolved to birds.

When you say that the science is only conjecture, you imply that you think that you are qualified to make that judgment. It implies that you possess sufficient mastery of the topic to have an informed opinion, in this case, that some well-grounded scientific beliefs are only conjecture.

You are writing to people that have learned that science and understand what it means, something you never thought important enough to do, knowledge you didn't value, and so do not possess. That's apparent in your writing as just discussed and as you have been told many times by posters on this thread. They don't see you as you see yourself, just like the Christian described above hearing somebody getting the theology so wrong claiming to have a better understanding of the material, Christian theology, than those who can see that he is lost in error and confusion.

You assume that role every time you repeat some creationist shibboleth, such as that evolution isn't proven, or sheep only ever give rise to other sheep. Even though you might find that argument compelling, wouldn't you want to know that others just see it as a compelling argument that your opinions are uniformed and therefore of less value than their own? Shouldn't you take a moment and consider the possibility that this is correct? If it is, what does that imply about the actual effect you are having compared to the one you prefer and perhaps thought you were having?

You're like a door-to-door salesman making claims to potential customers about a product you don't really understand that they as well informed consumers can see are incorrect, but you don't know that. So you never make a sale. Wouldn't that salesman benefit from considering a constructive criticism of his method and learning how his presentation is actually being received? Yes, of course, if his purpose is to make a sale. Ask yourself what your purpose is here. Are you trying to change minds, or something else?

 

[gnostic]

That's right, with mathematics there is proof because of evidence that 1 + 1 = 2. But with evolution there is no proof that because something that looks like a dinosaur fossil means that the animal became a bird.

Sciences are concerned with testing the theory, and testing involved with finding evidence or performing experiments. And evidence involve observations that provide real world information (data) about the phenomena.

Evidence are real and physical, and part of the natural or physical phenomena. It is the evidence that determine the validity of any hypothesis or theory.

Maths and mathematical equations (or proofs) don’t test theories or hypotheses, evidence do.

Mathematical equations (in a hypothesis or theory) are only proposed abstract solutions; they (equations) are not true, until the evidence test and verify “correctness” of the equations.

Likewise, no explanations & predictions (in a theory or hypothesis) are true until the evidence test and verify the explanations & predictions.

Evidence and data take precedence in all natural sciences, not mathematical proofs. Proofs are not better than observations of evidence. Proofs are not more important than testing, and you cannot “test” without evidence.

You keep demonstrating your ignorance, when you keep making claims like you do, above, repeating your errors.

Are you incapable of learning anything new?
Are you incapable of learning science?
Are you incapable of learning from your mistakes, and stop repeating the same silly and ignorant mistakes over and over again?​

It is not funny that you cannot see your errors that you make.

When are you ever going to learn that abstract proofs are not better than physical evidence? When are you going to ever learn that science don’t prove, they test?

The way you are going...NEVER!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Abiogenesis is impossible, to use the ingredients that God created in an experiment is funny. In a Godless scenario you get to start with absolutely nothing and out of that comes what we have today.
There are no facts or proof of abiogenesis

If abiogenesis is impossible then it would have been impossible for your God to have created anything.
Oops.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Obviously someone with a 5 year old intellect is smarter than those pushing abiogenesis and evolution. When have you ever in your wildest imagination believe if a dog had puppies for example that eventually one of them would be a fish, ape, fly or a bird?

Nobody who understands evolution would expect such a thing.
So there's your answer.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The Bible is full of documented cases throughout history, documented cases now in the Church. People are getting delivered from demonic spirits, addictions, changed all over the world.
I don’t have a problem when someone says a bird has had these changes over the years, it’s still a bird.
What the problem was is when someone says a human used to be an ape due to evolution. This is absurd.

Wait, when did anyone demonstrate that demonic spirits exist?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

@SkepticThinker, I think the impasse that @ElishaElijah has with taxonomy is that when he sees the word 'ape' he creates mental imagery of a specific species of ape such as Gorilla or Chimpanzee. One must understand 'ape' is in all purposes the English version of the Latin word 'Hominoidea'. They don't see it as a generalization of a family of animals with similar social and biological traits.

Edit: Personally, I create mental imagery of Gorilla when I read or hear 'ape'. I create mental imagery of Macaque when I read or hear 'monkey'. And I create mental imagery of Orangutan when I read or hear 'primate'. That does not mean those images are what the respective word is referencing, that's my own intrapersonal biases.

 

[F1fan]

@SkepticThinker, I think the impasse that @ElishaElijah has with taxonomy is that when he sees the word 'ape' he creates mental imagery of a specific species of ape such as Gorilla or Chimpanzee. One must understand 'ape' is in all purposes the English version of the Latin word 'Hominoidea'. They don't see it as a generalization of a family of animals with similar social and biological traits.

Edit: Personally, I create mental imagery of Gorilla when I read or hear 'ape'. I create mental imagery of Macaque when I read or hear 'monkey'. And I create mental imagery of Orangutan when I read or hear 'primate'. That does not mean those images are what the respective word is referencing, that's my own intrapersonal biases.

This is why context is important when language is used. English offers adequate precision to allow comprehension of ideas being expressed. How some might get fixated on certain words due to bias and ignorance of science is a common handicap among certain types of theists. It becomes a matter of trying to educate these folks who think they understand more than they actually do. This is the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

 

[ElishaElijah]

@SkepticThinker, I think the impasse that @ElishaElijah has with taxonomy is that when he sees the word 'ape' he creates mental imagery of a specific species of ape such as Gorilla or Chimpanzee. One must understand 'ape' is in all purposes the English version of the Latin word 'Hominoidea'. They don't see it as a generalization of a family of animals with similar social and biological traits.

Edit: Personally, I create mental imagery of Gorilla when I read or hear 'ape'. I create mental imagery of Macaque when I read or hear 'monkey'. And I create mental imagery of Orangutan when I read or hear 'primate'. That does not mean those images are what the respective word is referencing, that's my own intrapersonal biases.

Actually I use the dictionary definition of ape which I sent to you. Anyone who would dispute that human beings are the rulers and have authority on the earth as stewards of God’s creation over animals isn’t worth any further discussion. The comments were ridiculous in that. If we couldn’t even agree on the obvious I don’t see any reason to waste time discussing anything else at all. I have found a different avenue and community. Been fun but for now not worth any more time.

 

[F1fan]

Actually I use the dictionary definition of ape which I sent to you. Anyone who would dispute that human beings are the rulers and have authority on the earth as stewards of God’s creation over animals isn’t worth any further discussion.

Your values are set by your religious assumptions and beliefs, not by facts. So objectively meaningless. Since science and reason relies on facts and objectivity your dismissal is due to a bias, and not an interest in knowing what is true.

The comments were ridiculous in that. If we couldn’t even agree on the obvious I don’t see any reason to waste time discussing anything else at all. I have found a different avenue and community. Been fun but for now not worth any more time.

Have you considered that your views are incorrect and biased? If no, why not?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Wait, when did anyone demonstrate that demonic spirits exist?

Maybe do a post and ask how many people on here practice witchcraft or consider themselves witches?
But Jesus cast out demons, I was oppressed by them but no more.

Your values are set by your religious assumptions and beliefs, not by facts. So objectively meaningless. Since science and reason relies on facts and objectivity your dismissal is due to a bias, and not an interest in knowing what is true.


Have you considered that your views are incorrect and biased? If no, why not?

So your scientific facts and personal observations lead you to believe that human beings do not rule the animals on the Earth?

 

[ppp]

So your scientific facts and personal observations lead you to believe that human beings do not rule the animals on the Earth?

You know that animals will ignore your orders. Right?

 

[ElishaElijah]

You know that animals will ignore your orders. Right?

And that means what? We can then determine their fate or where they live, or tame them and not the other way around. Not sure your point

 

[Valjean]

Actually I use the dictionary definition of ape which I sent to you. Anyone who would dispute that human beings are the rulers and have authority on the earth as stewards of God’s creation over animals isn’t worth any further discussion. The comments were ridiculous in that. If we couldn’t even agree on the obvious I don’t see any reason to waste time discussing anything else at all. I have found a different avenue and community. Been fun but for now not worth any more time.

* Your dictionary definition did not support your interpretation
* The dictionary definition reflects popular usage, not the technical definition we're talking about here.
* "Rule" means to make laws and mandates that others must respect.
Why do you think humans have administrative or legislative 'authority' over animals? That's what "rule" entails. Humans don't make laws mandating animal behavior, and animals are unaware they have human rulers. What you apparently see as obvious is an emotional interpretation. You're not thinking, you're emoting.
What is "obvious" to you is obvious to noöne else. You're not thinking.

 

[ppp]

And that means what?

That it's is appropriate to be led to believe it that humans fo not rule the animals. As per your earlier question. Are you not keeping track of what you posted?

We can then determine their fate or where they live, or tame them and not the other way around

So was It a tiger or bear or lion walks up to you, you will act like prey. It's not like you think you are exempt from the circle of life.

Not sure your point

That humans are animals.

 

[Valjean]

Maybe do a post and ask how many people on here practice witchcraft or consider themselves witches?
But Jesus cast out demons, I was oppressed by them but no more.

Huh?

So your scientific facts and personal observations lead you to believe that human beings do not rule the animals on the Earth?

Do the animals realize they are ruled?
You've made up your own definition of "rule."

 

[ElishaElijah]

* Your dictionary definition did not support your interpretation
* The dictionary definition reflects popular usage, not the technical definition we're talking about here.
* "Rule" means to make laws and mandates that others must respect.
Why do you think humans have administrative or legislative 'authority' over animals? That's what "rule" entails. Humans don't make laws mandating animal behavior, and animals are unaware they have human rulers. What you apparently see as obvious is an emotional interpretation. You're not thinking, you're emoting.
What is "obvious" to you is obvious to noöne else. You're not thinking.

That’s all your opinion and doesn’t reflect reality. If human beings want to take over a territory they do. That is authority, dominion and rule and that’s over all the animals.

 

[ElishaElijah]

That humans are animals.

If you believe you’re an animal go for it, I’m not. But I’m not surprised, men also believe they are women and vice versa, some think they are both. I think it’s a mental and spiritual problem.

 

[Valjean]

And that means what? We can then determine their fate or where they live, or tame them and not the other way around. Not sure your point

Wouldn't that be "dominate," "exploit?" Rule implies a mutual understanding of legislative mandates.