Why is evolution even still a debate?

[Valjean]

And if that's all the theory was expected to explain, evolution wouldn't still be a theory.

But what would it be, if not a theorems and theory? What other categories are there? Theory is the highest, best supported category science has.

 

[Valjean]

If you have experimental evidence (any evidence) for a gradual change then why has nobody ever presented it? Why not just show the evidence and win the argument?

Till Gould came up with his punctuated equilibrium, gradualism was pretty much all we had.
Almost all the evidence we have is gradualistic.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But what would it be, if not a theorems and theory? What other categories are there? Theory is the highest, best supported category science has.

It just shows truly who know about science and those who merely claim to know. Because, if it needs more and can be more than a theory, lets stick a pacemaker on him and stick up under a giant industrial magnet. Afterall, magnetics is a theory so the easily predictable outcome of this event won't happen as we predict.

 

[cladking]

Till Gould came up with his punctuated equilibrium, gradualism was pretty much all we had.
Almost all the evidence we have is gradualistic.

If you have some evidence that ":evolution" is gradual then why not cite it? Don't even bother with a link. I know how to use a search engine. Just say it. Type it out and hit "post reply".

If you have any evidence for "survival of the fittest" causing species change I'd also be interested. I'm not talking about murdering large numbers of individuals in an experiment with cyanide and then showing the new species is cyanide resistant. Every hypothesis predicts this.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans are humans.

For human egotists the consensus said you have dominion.

Which you prove as you even look into out of space where you don't exist and talk about it and name it. Just as humans.

So you state first I give you a thesis how the earth as a God was created.

You say history particles gases exploding pressure fusion.

The thesis how an asteroid came and hit earth.

The thesis the theory of everything you claim water was frozen on it.... it held first life it was a God.

Why did the water melt then?

Theists claim an earth attack began life.

It's why natural humans don't like you as memory about the scientists is a satanist who killed all life on earth.

It's why natural humans could care less about your ego.

 

[Brian2]

Can you demonstrate that?

It is a belief. Do you think I should show you the passages in the Bible to demonstrate it? I could do that if you like.

 

[Brian2]

Disagree. Faith is unjustified belief, meaning beliefs supported by it lack sufficient evidentiary support to be accepted as correct by empirical standards.

The foundations of science include philosophical planks such as skepticism, or the idea that no idea should be accepted without sufficient support, and empiricism, or the belief that sufficient support comes from compelling evidence. Are these believed on faith? No. They have been shown to be reliable beliefs by the stellar success of their fruits.

But as I find myself writing increasingly often, what do you think the persuasive power of an argument that doesn't recognize the evidence in support of the scientific method and calls it all faith is?

It is true, in science the idea that there is no God is not accepted, just as the idea that there is a God is not accepted.
What do you think I am wanting to persuade you to see?
If you can't see that your position is based on faith just as mine is that is a blindness in you. I can show you that you are wrong but that is not going to open your eyes to that fact.

Science doesn't say that it can know nothing about God. Theists do.

Let God manifest physically. Let God answer prayer. Let God move mountains when believers pray, and science will see it. If there is no physical manifestation to an imagined entity, then that entity is not a part of our reality, and can be said to be nonexistent.

Isn't that the quality that distinguishes the nonexistent from the real - the inability of the former to have any interaction with the latter? That's what distinguishes wolves from werewolves, and vampire bats from vampires. Wolves and vampire bats modify reality by virtue of being a part of it and interacting with its elements, whereas werewolves and vampires never change anything. They don't interact with reality. That's what nonexistent means - undetectable.

How are gods different than werewolves and vampires? What makes them more real? All three are considered undetectable. Isn't that what you mean by saying that science can say nothing about God - that it cannot make any observation or measurement that would reveal God or the realm of the supernatural? How is that different from saying that such things are nonexistent?

You have it back to front, it is atheists who say that science knows about God, not science.
Science it seems does not do proof. Some questions are left open and the existence of God is one.
I come onto forums and atheist scientists tell me that science does not say one way or the other about the existence of God and then other atheists say that science has shown that God does not exist.
I think the latter have changed the naturalistic methodology into a naturalistic metaphysic.
Science has proven that the materialistic view of the universe is true.
I think what you might mean is that science has not found that a supreme being interferes in the affairs of the universe. But that is not proving that a God does not exist.
You leave out the history of God, the reasoning around God, peoples' experiences with God, and the fact that science just presumes that God did not do things. ie science just defines life and consciousness in such a way for example, that it is part of the material universe without the need for spirit.
I speak about OBEs in NDEs and atheists go out of their way to argue that the obvious is not true, because the obvious is what disagrees with their world view.

Supernaturalism is an incoherent proposition. It posits a reality that can impact ours without impacting our reality, that is, a God that is causally connected to nature such that it can impregnate a virgin, for example, but not detectable by science. Compare that with werewolves and wolves. Werewolves affect nothing, and are undetectable. Those two ideas go together, and are the sine qua non of the nonexistent. Whereas wolves (yes, I did that deliberately) affect their environments and are affected by them, and are thus detectable and can be listed among the real, the existent. Those ideas go together as well.

Where the concept becomes incoherent is when we mix these, and posit gods that can affect our reality but themselves are undetectable, a sort of one-way causality.

Consider Sagan's dragon in the garage, a figment of his imagination that refers to nothing real, but is claimed to be real and to exist. Take a look at this:

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll offer to spray-paint the dragon to make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?
​

This is exactly how the skeptic views the claim that this deity is real but empirically undetectable. Of course, the theist adds the equivalent of saying that this dragon actually can affect reality even though it is undetectable.

So a sceptic can say they do not believe in the dragon. Fair enough. I presume this dragon has not done any other things in the past to show it exists, there is no evidence presented except the belief of the person who believes.
But of course for an empiricist that position would entail the rejection of other evidence for God in favour of the presumption of no God.

Agreed. And notice that I didn't do that. I haven't said that gods don't exist, just that if they are empirically undetectable even in principle, they are indistinguishable from the nonexistent and can be treated as such until they DO do something detectable.

You have already said you are an empiricist so you are walking science and accept nothing else as evidence. Empiricism is your faith. Naturalistic materialism is a default position for an empiricist when science cannot detect a God. Nothing shows naturalistic materialism to be true except the lack of evidence for the other.
But of course there is evidence for the other that the empiricist rejects.

 

[F1fan]

That life forms can evolve to accommodate conditions is an observable fact. The theory of how and why they have evolved as they have, however, remains a theory. Doesn't the fact that you simply can't admit this give you serious pause for thought?

What's there to think about? You repeated what I said in your own way. that we observe evolution occurring and the description of this is a highly successful theory in science. Theories is science are very powerful explanations.

Doesn't the fact that you fight so hard to dismiss and reject any degree of skepticism about evolutionary theory make you feel kind of weird, when skepticism is so essential the the process of science and to empirical thinking?

I dismiss ignorance. I dismiss lay people who refuse to understand what science reports. I dismiss people who get science wrong. Anyone whose views on science differs from what experts report are considered poorly informed.

Why, when I dare to suggest that the theory of evolution is quite possibly wrong, or is being over-applied, are you feeling so driven to defend it?

You can say the theory of evolution is wrong, but based on what? Not experts. Not facts. Not credible text books. Then what is left, except religious disinformation? Only certain religious folks have a motive to discredit and reject the theory of evolution.

The real question is why you are doubting experts, and as a non-expert yourself.

A hypothesis is just an as-yet untested extrapolation of the predictability of a theory. "If theory "X" is accurate, then hypothetically, when we do this, to that, we should get these results". If we did not get the results we expected, then the theory is wrong, or the hypothesis is, or the experimental process is, or some combination is. And if we do get the results we expected, it doesn't mean the theory is right, because it could still be wrong. It just means that the theory stood up as being right under that particular hypothetical expectation, and that particularly designed experiment. And that's why the theory remain a theory.

You would get a D+ for this answer on a 7th grade science test.

Your heavy bias against is still evident. Why don't you trust science?

There are no "conclusions" in science.

That'll be a huge shock to scientists who report their conclusions.

Then call them results. Or do you think there are no results from experiments either?

There are only theories that function as predicted within the context of their hypothesized expectations, and theories that don't. This obsession with "scientific conclusions" is part of the cult of 'scientism', not science.

Bordering on word salad here. But your bias against science is still clear.

 

[F1fan]

God is dangerous. He is also good. He's only dangerous to those who reject him however.
You ask two different questions. Kids with cancer, or any people with cancer for that matter, are due to the sin curse.

And in your view who designed the universe to have cancer as a punishment, and that is can affect children? Your God. So suffering and often a death sentence that is dished out at random is what your God calls just?

You're better off accepting evolution, as that's a horrible God.

 

[F1fan]

If you have some evidence that ":evolution" is gradual then why not cite it? Don't even bother with a link. I know how to use a search engine. Just say it. Type it out and hit "post reply".

If you have any evidence for "survival of the fittest" causing species change I'd also be interested. I'm not talking about murdering large numbers of individuals in an experiment with cyanide and then showing the new species is cyanide resistant. Every hypothesis predicts this.

Where did you get such uncomfortable feelings about these elements of evolution?

 

[cladking]

Where did you get such uncomfortable feelings about these elements of evolution?

What the hell feelings are you talking about? You have no evidence of a gradual change in species caused by "survival of the fittest" and you want to talk about my "feelings". I specificaklly said that not even beliefs have any bearing on reality so how are "feelings" going to cause speciation or solve it?

 

[cladking]

Where did you get such uncomfortable feelings about these elements of evolution?

People want to believe in "evolution" so they can continue walking over the weak, less evolved, and dispossessed. It's hard to stop anyone believing what he wants to believe especially when there's lots of profit in it.

We all tend to accept the words of experts and even more the status quo.

 

[F1fan]

People want to believe in "evolution" so they can continue walking over the weak, less evolved, and dispossessed. It's hard to stop anyone believing what he wants to believe especially when there's lots of profit in it.

False. The educated accept evolution because that is what the results demonstrate. Experts do the work and they show how they did it.

We all tend to accept the words of experts and even more the status quo.

This sounds like a biased and cynical view. What caused you to assume this view?

 

[cladking]

This sounds like a biased and cynical view. What caused you to assume this view?

You've got to be kidding!

Who do you go to see for an operation? An accountant?

 

[cladking]

False. The educated accept evolution because that is what the results demonstrate. Experts do the work and they show how they did it.

Every experiment and every observation says all changes in all life of all types and every level is sudden. There are no observed gradual changes in life other than your interpretation of the fossil record.

 

[cladking]

Who do you go to see for an operation? An accountant?

I suppose you're investing your money in snow that falls in Atlanta and having a doctor do your taxes. Instead of a condo, house, or apartment you live in a giant burrow with internet.

 

[F1fan]

Every experiment and every observation says all changes in all life of all types and every level is sudden. There are no observed gradual changes in life other than your interpretation of the fossil record.

Show us your work as an expert. Show us the experts that agree with you. If you can't, then I defer to what experts report, not you as a non-expert.

 

[Valjean]

If you have some evidence that ":evolution" is gradual then why not cite it? Don't even bother with a link. I know how to use a search engine. Just say it. Type it out and hit "post reply".

If you have any evidence for "survival of the fittest" causing species change I'd also be interested. I'm not talking about murdering large numbers of individuals in an experiment with cyanide and then showing the new species is cyanide resistant. Every hypothesis predicts this.

If you can Google, yourself, why prevail on me? Why should I do the work for you?

Is this just another attempt to evade exposure to unsettling facts while maintaining the illusion of interest and open-mindedness? Didn't you see illustrations of Eohippus evolving into Equus in your family's children's books and in schoolbooks, when you were a kid? I did -- sixty years ago.
It was common knowledge back then, but seems to have become politically unfavorable today, even as scientific confirmation increases.

In my opinion, you are suffering from Conventionalism. You have a frame of reference, world-view and religion that's familiar to you, and you don't want to rock the boat. Novelty threatens your world. You're actively evading &/or ignoring novel ideas and points-of-view, while feigning intellectual sophistication and cosmopolitanism.

I am not a psychotherapist. I cannot fix your conventionalist neurological disorder. No matter what information I present you with, you're going to find a way to ignore it.

Survival of the fittest? This is such an obvious, childishly simple mechanism, it baffles me how so many seem to misunderstand it, as well as why extending its effects through endless reïteration seems so difficult.
Natural selection is a simple, obvious mechanism. Well and easily demonstrated; used every day in science, medicine, agriculture and industry.

Please stop fooling yourself and attempting to confuse others. Open your eyes.
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."


ï

 

[Valjean]

It is true, in science the idea that there is no God is not accepted, just as the idea that there is a God is not accepted.
What do you think I am wanting to persuade you to see?
If you can't see that your position is based on faith just as mine is that is a blindness in you. I can show you that you are wrong but that is not going to open your eyes to that fact.



You have it back to front, it is atheists who say that science knows about God, not science.
Science it seems does not do proof. Some questions are left open and the existence of God is one.
I come onto forums and atheist scientists tell me that science does not say one way or the other about the existence of God and then other atheists say that science has shown that God does not exist.
I think the latter have changed the naturalistic methodology into a naturalistic metaphysic.
Science has proven that the materialistic view of the universe is true.
I think what you might mean is that science has not found that a supreme being interferes in the affairs of the universe. But that is not proving that a God does not exist.
You leave out the history of God, the reasoning around God, peoples' experiences with God, and the fact that science just presumes that God did not do things. ie science just defines life and consciousness in such a way for example, that it is part of the material universe without the need for spirit.
I speak about OBEs in NDEs and atheists go out of their way to argue that the obvious is not true, because the obvious is what disagrees with their world view.



So a sceptic can say they do not believe in the dragon. Fair enough. I presume this dragon has not done any other things in the past to show it exists, there is no evidence presented except the belief of the person who believes.
But of course for an empiricist that position would entail the rejection of other evidence for God in favour of the presumption of no God.



You have already said you are an empiricist so you are walking science and accept nothing else as evidence. Empiricism is your faith. Naturalistic materialism is a default position for an empiricist when science cannot detect a God. Nothing shows naturalistic materialism to be true except the lack of evidence for the other.
But of course there is evidence for the other that the empiricist rejects.

Science works with observable facts. If there is no concrete evidence that a phenomenon exists, science has no choice but to ignore it, it has nothing to work with. Baseless, unevidenced claims are outside the purview of science.

The religious claim empirical evidence exists, but it does not. Under scrutiny, their examples topple like bowling pins, and have been doing so for hundreds of years, as science finds natural explanations for the miracles of God.

"Faith" is baseless belief; belief with insufficient evidence. Faith is the bane of science. The scientific method demands fact-based analysis and answers, as well as testing. Science is pretty much the opposite of faith.

 

[Valjean]

People want to believe in "evolution" so they can continue walking over the weak, less evolved, and dispossessed. It's hard to stop anyone believing what he wants to believe especially when there's lots of profit in it.

We all tend to accept the words of experts and even more the status quo.

Apparently your insecurity leads you to interpret psychologically uncomfortable ideas as insults and slights; as psychic threats.