Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

It sounds as if CD saw people in terms of their use to him.

Only a Christian could take such lovely charitable "christian" words, and attempt turn it into something tawdry, for no other reason than that the man has been declared anti-Christian.

1 Reply

@Anomie,

Anomie wrote:

The truth of an assertion is proven by 'sufficient' evidence in this case.

This is not logical, be it direct, or indirect.

The topic stated proof for evolution, yet there does not appear to be proof for evolution or any natural science.

Scientists are not interested in mere truth. They are interested in useful explanations and solutions to specific problems.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

What is the arguement?

The conditions of physical laws, theories and hypothesis have been defined.

You are arguing what ought to be, such as "mere truth", "useful explanations", or "specific problems", I would argue that such is not a positive, scientific analysis.

Science is a formal system, being neutral, however it requires sentience to cogent 'facts' and statistics, such as cognitive bias and statistical bias, meaning the system is no longer formal in this case, hence the scientific method.

The evidence of evolution has been acknowledged, it may also be interpreted as a 'fact' or 'proof', however this is a posteriori knowledge, it is open to the concept of falsification, it is not infallible a priori knowledge, such as that of tautologous axioms and theorms.

Philosophically, science pressuposes naturalism , it methodological naturalism, metaphysical beliefs are not necessary.

Scientific methodology, falsification, positivism cannot be contained, analytically.

Example:
Can the scientific method be proven by the scientific method?
Can positivism be empirically verified?
Is falsification open to the concept of being falsified itself?

Informal systems appear to be self refuting.

Reality may be distinguished from theoretical constructs, such as physical quantity, or perhaps you believe in a mathematical universe (ensemble)?

1 Reply

@Anomie,

Anomie wrote:

Induced inferences from fossil record to past existing organism satisfies the conditions for circumstantial evidence.

Horse before the cart. It's not that finding fossils creates a theory of evolution. It's that a theory of evolution based on common ancestry, will predict the discover of transitional fossils, and even specific the region and strata in which we may discover them.

Anomie wrote:

Do you dislike circumstantial evidence?

I've never met a person from Rhode Island, I've not liked.

Anomie wrote:

Is it not evidence?

Is what not evidence? Specifically.

Anomie wrote:

You cannot refute my arguement by reducing it to ridicule, or to the individual, let us eliminate cognitive bias.

It deserves ridicule, it's ridiculous. Waxing poetic about your misunderstandings about what laws and theories is not an argument.

Anomie wrote:

The truth of an assertion is proven by 'sufficient' evidence in this case.

This is not logical, be it direct, or indirect.

Just so we are clear, you understand that theories don't become laws. You got lost talking about gravity, and married the idea of law and fact fallaciously.

Anomie wrote:

The topic stated proof for evolution, yet there does not appear to be proof for evolution or any natural science.

Perhaps since you're new, you're unfamiliar with this thread. It was a response to a thread titled: "Don't tell me there's not proof for creationism." The person who started this thread understood very well the difference between "proof" and "evidence" but chose the word out of parity.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Anomie,

Anomie wrote:

Can the scientific method be proven by the scientific method?
Is falsification open to the concept of being falsified itself?

Informal systems appear to be self refuting.

"Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"

A
R
T

1 Reply

@aperson,

WE do see animal changes by why cant we find an animal remains showing the change, a fossil.

2 Replies

@Philis,

What? Are you unfamiliar with our fossil record?

A
R
T

0 Replies

@Philis,

How is that people without the slightest understanding of the theory of evolution can a) come to the conclusion thatit is wrong b) belittle it as "just a theory" again enormously ignorant of what it actually is c) try to argue about and convince people who DO understand that they know better???

Evolution IS. The evidence is unimaginably VAST. The evidence for other theories total ZERO. It's not disputed by anyone who lacks a ridiculous fairytale delusion based agenda.

1 Reply

@Eorl,

First off Eorl I'm not a Christian in any sense you might mean. I'm trying to find out what anti-Christians and atheists will do if they come to power which is what they must want to do to have any credibility.

And Darwin is well known for his narcissism and hypochondria. I don't think those last thoughts were 'lovely charitable "christian" words' at all. He might have said he was sorry. 10 kids got out of poor, long suffering Emma. A serious nepotist and nepotism is in contradiction to his theories. And he lifted a few ideas from others without crediting them. He was a magistrate when the law was hanging people whose hunger drove them to theft.

Read Desmond and Moore. And Professor Basil Willey's Darwin and Butler.

0 Replies

@Eorl,

Quote:

How is that people without the slightest understanding of the theory of evolution can a) come to the conclusion thatit is wrong b) belittle it as "just a theory" again enormously ignorant of what it actually is c) try to argue about and convince people who DO understand that they know better???

That entirely misses the point Eorl. One might have a complete understanding of evolutionary ideas, takes about 10 minutes for a person of average intelligence, and as a result be in favour of putting it all in a broom cupboard out of sight of the aunties and children. To get it out on display for them demonstrates a lack of understanding about more important things than that theory and of the theory itself and its implications.

It has stud farm practices on the end of it for human fertility. Do you know anything about those practices? They are contradictory to diversity because they are in the service of limited objectives. The racehorses you see winning the prizes are not the horses evolution designed.

Are you up for diversity in human fertility? Gravity, radioactivity, cyclotrons, and suchlike are not concerned with copulation. Evolution is concerned with nothing but copulation.

You should suck a lemon when blurting about evolution without the sex. Lies of omission are still lies and are insulting to the intelligence of those you expose to them with your cicerone imposter style.

What is your objection to females being fertilised as soon as they are able to be and by whoever they themselves choose? That's what happens in evolutionary contexts. I would guess you agree that the proprieties should take precedence over the hormones. Most half-baked evolutionists do when they are got into a corner. Do you studiously avoid such corners? If you came into my pub spouting evolution you would be in such a corner in short order.

0 Replies

@Anomie,

Quote:

The topic stated proof for evolution, yet there does not appear to be proof for evolution or any natural science.

Therein lies your flaw.
You have set no real standard for what constitutes proof.

You simply interpret the facts to not be proof when it doesn't match your desired outcome. Because of that there is no refutation of your argument. It only deserves ridicule since it would mean there is proof for nothing in science.

Even math is based on circumstantial evidence and assumptions. So using your standards there is no proof that 1+1= 2.

3 Replies

@parados,

Check out Spengler's essay The Meaning of Numbers.

1 Reply

@spendius,

That is no more evidence of anything than Darwin's Origin of Species is evidence. It's only a book after all.

0 Replies

@parados,

I can't help but notice, para, that you have ducked the question about the order of precedence between the hormones and the proprietaries. I have little doubt that others have noticed too.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Horse before the cart. It's not that finding fossils creates a theory of evolution. It's that a theory of evolution based on common ancestry, will predict the discover of transitional fossils, and even specific the region and strata in which we may discover them.

It is hostorcal science, being circumstantial, observing gravitation is direct.

Observations of micro evolution is direct, I am not certain if it is macro evolution may be direct, specifically speciation.

In the case for humans selection pressure has been prohibited by cultural phenomena, hence no macro selection pressure.

Also, transitional fossil evidence constructed new theories of 'gradualism' that refute the previous.

Acknowledge, genetic code =/= cultural consequence.

Example:
Humans anatomically flying =/= humans culturally flying

It is greedy reductionalism.

Quote:

Is what not evidence? Specifically.

Circumstantial evidence may infact increase the 'sufficiency' of evidence, whilst there is a modal of inference.

Quote:

It deserves ridicule, it's ridiculous. Waxing poetic about your misunderstandings about what laws and theories is not an argument.

I already stated that it is a genetic fallacy to deny theory to physical law, the antecedent conditions may be interpreted as a physical law, 'fact', hypothesis, or theory.

Does evolution satisfy the required conditions of a physical law, such as f=ma?

I personally interpret evolution as a 'fact' (not certainty) and theory, it does not appear to satisfy physical law.

Furthermore, cognitive bias deviates from logical consistency, you are increasing the logical fallacies, meaning you will deviate from truth.

Quote:

Just so we are clear, you understand that theories don't become laws. You got lost talking about gravity, and married the idea of law and fact fallaciously.

I have elaborated, and I also suggested this, prior to this post.

Quote:

Perhaps since you're new, you're unfamiliar with this thread. It was a response to a thread titled: "Don't tell me there's not proof for creationism." The person who started this thread understood very well the difference between "proof" and "evidence" but chose the word out of parity.

From my interpretation, proof may only exist in the spectrum of formation rules, such as semantics and mathematics, naturalism is a circular premise, meaning the 'deductive science' is infact an inductive basis.

Are you a metaphysical naturalist?

I am personally open to the concept of an unmoved mover, furthermore I believe in the mathematical universe and simulation arguement, however I am an ignostic (non cognitive).

3 Replies

@failures art,

That is a fuzzy concept.

0 Replies

@Anomie,

Quote:

It is hostorcal science, being circumstantial, observing gravitation is direct.

What does gravity look like then?

You are confusing the results of the force of gravity with the process itself. They are NOT the same thing.The results of evolution are readily available to view just as the results of gravity is readily available. You don't see the inner workings of gravity any more than you do the workings of macro evolution. You can only make assumptions based on the result.

1 Reply

@parados,

Formal systems are a priori, abeing axiomatic derrivations of proof.

my interpretation of proof exists in formal systems.

Peano's axioms are neccesarily true beliefs, will you refute a tautology?

0 Replies

@parados,

The phenomena, being the attraction between bodies of mass is gravitation.

It has been directly observed.

What does space and time look like?

0 Replies

@Anomie,

Quote:

Observations of micro evolution is direct, I am not certain if it is macro evolution may be direct, specifically speciation.

What is the mathematical difference between species?
How many micro evolutions are required to achieve that difference?

Your argument makes no sense when you use math Anomie. A function of number of changes and time while using microevolution mathematically results in new species.

1 Reply

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know