-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The importance of the EVIDENCE in science
- Thread starter gnostic
- Start date
tas8831
Well-Known Member
You've never done an experiment or engaged in science.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
ppp
Well-Known Member
Oh no! Never. After a brief conversation, I learned that his tether to reality is frayed in multiple spots.He doesn't, either.
Ask him about human speech
cladking
Well-Known Member
Despite the typical remarkable rudeness, I'll try again.
No experiment in "evolution" has ever focused on individuals and it is impossible to focus on individuals because individuals are so much different and so exceedingly complex. We not only don't understand consciousness but the interplay between structures determined by genes and individual experience would make even clone studies irrelevant for the foreseeable future.
Until we understand the nature of consciousness it's quite impossible to experiment on its effect on "fitness" or the real causes of "change in species".
I'm very sorry reality is so complex and the only science we have to study it is reductionistic and doesn't work on some things. This is NOT my fault and I am trying to fix it but all I get is grief and lectures. All I get is a steady stream of insults.
Reality existed a long time before I was born and it will be here long after I'm gone. If you have a problem take it up with nature or whichever God you believe in. I don't care.
ppp
Well-Known Member
Prove it.
cladking
Well-Known Member
If you don't understand every individual is different then there's nothing I can say.
You'll never understand that no two identical things exist in the universe.
Do you understand that every individual is a product of his genes express themselves? Do everything there is to know about genes and how they relate one to another also?
ppp
Well-Known Member
I do understand that every individua is different. Every individual being different does not support your claim.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Of course it does. Why does one individual rabbit outrun the fox, another never encounter the fox, and a third sustain the fox with its flesh?
It is almost always due to consciousness and how this consciousness is created by genes and experience plus knowledge. It is impossible to understand how species change without understanding the consciousness of each individual that composed the parent and child species. This is because species make huge changes only when their niches make huge changes and most individuals die off because of specific behaviors.
This is all invisible to us because we can see only the "evidence" which is fossils which are interpreted to fit our beliefs in "survival of the fittest" and gradual change. We believe this despite the fact that the world is periodically repopulated with a new set of plants and animals.
"Evolution" would be real and very much as described by Darwin except that niches never last long enough for species to undergo massive change. There would be little change in species if it were driven by "survival of the fittest" because every individual is fit.
Consciousness drives evolution which is simply invisible to us no matter how much God shoves it right in our collective faces.
ppp
Well-Known Member
This has nothing to do with what I asked you. I am not going to try to coerce you to answer, but if you cannot or will not focus on direct responses, I do not see any point in continuing.
cladking
Well-Known Member
You made two statements and asked me nothing;
"I do understand that every individua is different. Every individual being different does not support your claim."
Arguing with believers is like trying to push on a chain.
ppp
Well-Known Member
In English grammar, the imperative mood is the form of the verb that makes direct commands and requests, such as "Sit still", "Tell me", "Count your blessings" and "Prove it".
If you need a question mark to recognize a request for information. Here:
Prove it?
cladking
Well-Known Member
So you expect me to prove Emily the dinosaur was totally different than Dean the dinosaur and that biologists never considered such differences!
I suppose they also know what they each had for lunch and that they were 4th cousins twice removed. Emily scored poorly on aptitude tests after a bad night's sleep. She developed a little hip pain late in life but would have survived 3.26290 more years if she hadn't stomped that butterfly a week earlier.
But you've taken all this into account already.
Last edited:
ppp
Well-Known Member
Nope, I asked you to prove your claim, 'No experiment in "evolution" has ever focused on individuals'. You have failed to do so. And you are trying to mask that failure through the above quoted bad faith argument.
Good luck to you in all of your future endeavors.
cladking
Well-Known Member
So my task should I choose to accept it is to cite every single experiment ever done AND to show that these experiments were properly designed, executed, and are repeatable.
I'm not sure even God could do this.
You can't show one single experiment that showed any change in species focused on the individuals and their differences. But you want me to show every single experiment ever done supports my beliefs preferentially to yours. They all support my beliefs and not yours.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
The importance of the EVIDENCE in science
Is "evidence" so evident that it needs no trust/belief/faith to start with, please? Right?
Regards
Is "evidence" so evident that it needs no trust/belief/faith to start with, please? Right?
Regards
ppp
Well-Known Member
Don't snipe at me for the fact that you cannot meet a sufficient evidentiary standard for your own claims. You are the one who rashly claimed that no such experiment exists. It is you, @cladking , whose responsibility it is to support your own freaking words. Or have the grace to take a breath and acknowledge that you overstepped.
Let us pretend for a moment that I cannot. Would my inability demonstrate your BALD ASSERTION that no such experiment exists if false? The answer is, No. You could be the only person in the whole univer who knows anything whatsoever about evolution, and your claim would still fall outside of your ability to demonstrate.
Now, if you are done fussing at shadows...
The first thing that you would need to do is enumerate the critical criteria for what an 'experiment in "evolution" that does not focus on individuals' is.
Second, convince your audience that your criteria are relevant and sufficient and exclusive.
Third, you would need to show that at least one experiment that meets those criteria exists.
That will not prove your claim, but it is the basic ante to make your claim worth discussing.
I don't think you understand what evidence is either. Science evidence is based on the fact that scientific phenomena are repeatable. Humans may not be able to gather evidence for a one-time historical event.
Moreover, your definition of scientific modeling is vague. Science doesn't rely on evidence to get to a truth, as the process of evidence is circular and endless. Today evidence may support model A, but tomorrow it may support model B. Science doesn't work that way. Instead, science relies on falsifiability and predictability to get to a truth. We fire rockets the first time to the moon not because it's evidenced we can do so, it is the predictability of science says so. Evidence can only comes afterward, that is, after rockets reach the moon.
Last edited:
ppp
Well-Known Member
Please. That was not a cogent sentence. A burned tree is evidence of a fire, even if no one is there to see it. Right?