The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[cladking]

I figgered' it was about time for wilds to suddenly have other things to do.... that is his usual antic.

You aren't going to be able to chase me off with insults and derision as is the usual tactic of those who believe in science.

I'm still on a break and might never come back but it has nothing whatsoever to do with your pathetic tactics.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Only because humans evolved believing in tribal concepts, and early concepts were superstitious and assumed a supernatural. Since human biology evolved this trait it still exists in about 85% of people today. This is why religious belief is still prevalent, not because it is true or factual. Look at how many religions there are, and how they are geographical. That is because cultures evolved with our biology to be believers.

Science deals with facts, and this is why religious concepts have no place in science. Religion is a social phenomenon and behavior. No one believes in God because they came to a rational conclusion via facts. They believe due to genes, and they believe specific religious concepts due to social learning.

First off, science does not ever deal in facts. Ask any scientist. And that's the first time I think I've ever heard someone claim religion was biological. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[F1fan]

First off, science does not ever deal in facts.

Odd word usage, as if scientists are in a back alley selling facts out of the truck of a car for extra cash.

Science as a process uses and relies on facts and data to build hypothesis, and then perform tests.

Ask any scientist. And that's the first time I think I've ever heard someone claim religion was biological. Thanks for the laugh.

Well the biological and evolutionary component of religious belief has been known for decades. You don't seem particularly knowledgeable on science in general so I'm not surprised you aren't aware of this.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Science as a process uses and relies on facts and data to build hypothesis, and then perform tests.

Nope not facts... nothing in science is fact. Working hypothesis' are not facts.

 

[F1fan]

Nope not facts... nothing in science is fact. Working hypothesis' are not facts.

All you need to do is educate yourself on what science is. Just get your science right.

 

[metis]

Nope not facts... nothing in science is fact. Working hypothesis' are not facts.

Is God a fact?

 

[Wildswanderer]

All you need to do is educate yourself on what science is. Just get your science right.

You first. There's No Such Thing As Proof In The Scientific World - There's Only Evidence

I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts

 

[Wildswanderer]

Is God a fact?

To me he is ..that doesn't mean he can be proved
Scientists cannot prove anything beyond doubt, either.

 

[metis]

To me he is ..that doesn't mean he can be proved
Scientists cannot prove anything beyond doubt, either.

Then you're contradicting yourself.

I do believe in God, and yet I also know that this is my belief and not assume it's an objective fact.

 

[F1fan]

You first. There's No Such Thing As Proof In The Scientific World - There's Only Evidence

I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts

There is nothing new in these articles. They are written for people who don't have a good understanding of science and how we humans think.

 

[F1fan]

To me he is ..that doesn't mean he can be proved

What do you mean 'to you God is a fact'? So you can get away with treating an implausible idea as a fact, but you oppose science using the word fact in its work?

Scientists cannot prove anything beyond doubt, either.

You are referring to the process of investigation, and how we accumulate facts and data to develop hypotheses, and then theories if they are successful in tests. Facts are not in dispute. But fact means something objectively, not personal. We can't have personal facts, as you claim to have. That is an absurdity.

 

[ppp]

To me he is ..that doesn't mean he can be proved
Scientists cannot prove anything beyond doubt, either.

Scientists follow the evidence. You lead it. Scientists look for what is most probable in reality. Not what is true "to me".

 

[rational experiences]

O science of men said earth was God. A planet.

The planet O an entity was held burning O. In space.

It stopped burning by space womb pressure which held O consuming bodies static. By loss from O mass to pressure.

Between mass O body and space pressure the balance. Acute.

So what was earth acting like without its heavens. Compared to the sun?

Science mind says how would I know?

Is what you gamble on. First position of the earth.

As science says it wants beginnings ...so why study biology claiming it is God when you want cosmic only advice?

Outright destroyer lying.

Reality men claim we began either as star mass or a UFO radiation ball and claim sanity as just a human. Born by two humans biological sex one body after a biological ape.

Is why men argue science is a liar is actually what your status is.

Natural man spiritual innate the designer of science says science today is life's destroyer liar.

Men said God status as a man and a theist as science. No one else did.

 

[rational experiences]

Scientists follow the evidence. You lead it. Scientists look for what is most probable in reality. Not what is true "to me".

You lead it.

When I was Ai attacked in atmospheric experiments AI said to my female life I lead it.

Lead what liar?

In my woman human womb O ovary he says you own my cell beginnings.

By voice. My ovaries already damaged womb menopause. Bled unnaturally when I saw a silver ball. Attacked again brain prickling seeing in new event.

Knowing science of man experimenting on biology looking for God. The leader. His beliefs. His attack by machines.

Okay.

But you are experimenting using machines and machine babies you feed by the resource from machine parent you took from God earth?

Yes.

You are machine possessed you know.

Scientist if you wanted wisdom of space womb maths you liars theory about it first. As men you place a human in a rocket to apply a mans experiments in space?

Are you then an alien in a UFO?

If he was sane he would say no.

If he is self designer of science man possessed by AI he would say he was the alien.

Get the new message yet liar destroyers?

 

[Valjean]

A fact is that which is evidenced to the point that disagreement would be obtuse in the extreme. It's a hypothesis with no reasonable alternatives.

That said, there's nothing that would so excite a scientist as much as emerging evidence calling an established 'fact' into question.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You are referring to the process of investigation, and how we accumulate facts and data to develop hypotheses, and then theories if they are successful in tests. Facts are not in dispute. But fact means something objectively, not personal. We can't have personal facts, as you claim to have. That is an absurdity.

everything is in despute. You really haven't been paying attention on this forum if you don't understand that.

 

[F1fan]

everything is in despute. You really haven't been paying attention on this forum if you don't understand that.

What I understand is that theists will apply questions to science that they won't apply to their religious beliefs.

Do you think your idea of God is more valid that the theory of evolution?

 

[joelr]

Yet you can't show a ring species where in one place the individuals are feathered and eat fish and in another they are are hairless and claw footed and burrow for grubs. You can't show not because it's impossible to happen but because it just doesn't happen. It doesn't happen because significant speciation occurs at bottlenecks. Niches don't last long enough for it to happen before mother nature rolls the dice and creates all new niches. Niches don't last long enough for a a fish to turn into an elephant and then into a whale. "Evolution" is a fairy tail created by a science that can't use experiment. Reality is logic incarnate but the theory of evolution is not logical. It seems logical only if you presume populations are static as Darwin did.

Over and over we see where species come from and how but instead we assumed the fit surviving is what caused it saw we didn't see it when it happened. We didn't see all change in life was sudden because we assumed that a quality of "fitness" was all pervasive despite logic.

YOU don't see it because you don't try to test your beliefs. You could easily cure the dozens of misconceptions you have demonstrated by actually learning. We have fossil records of most of this. Just Hominidae are incredibly complicated. If you want to fond out how a fish got to elephant you have to learn. Fish mostly stay fish? There are some animals from the Cambrian explosion that evolved from fish to amphibians then to reptiles then mammals. This started 2 billion years ago.
Your claim that evolution is a fairy tale shows you have no idea what evolution is. What you seem to be aware of is some crank apologetics.
Changes of characteristics through gene expression is one aspect. We have seen this, so you are already wrong.
You contested the evolution of the dog as impossible. It was shown this happens in a way you were not familiar with. No mention of that. You are on to another point. Moving the goalpost practically every post. It's why I realized you are not legit.

 

[gnostic]

First off, science does not ever deal in facts. Ask any scientist. And that's the first time I think I've ever heard someone claim religion was biological. Thanks for the laugh.

Actually sciences (and I am talking about physical sciences or natural sciences, not social sciences) do deal in facts, by trying to explain the facts, though observations of the physical or natural phenomena.

The physical phenomena or natural phenomena are the facts.

This “explanation” are attempts to understand the phenomena in a model. This model is often referred to hypothesis or theory. The model should include explanations as to

1. WHAT this phenomena is,
2. HOW does this phenomena work, and find out
3. WHAT applications it may have, and
4. HOW would one implement these applications.

The model should also include predictions. The purposes of having predictive models are to let limits and scopes as to how you test the model (eg perform experiments or find evidence through fieldwork...or even both).

The explanatory model and predictive model, in the hypothesis or theory must be tested, using observations (eg discovering evidence or performing experiments), and data obtained from the observations.

The tests do not only verify solid models, the tests would also refute any incorrect or weak models.

So the theory or hypothesis is proposed explanations that explain the phenomena or explain the facts, and in the testing phase of Scientific Method, using observations of the phenomena (facts) to determine if the model (eg hypothesis) is probable or improbable.

So yes, science does deal with facts. Science try to explain the facts, and use the facts (evidence) to test the hypothesis.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So yes, science does deal with facts. Science try to explain the facts, and use the facts (evidence) to test the hypothesis.

False. Evidence isn't fact.