A Question For My Evolutionist Friends
- Thread starter Marie
- Start date
It may not be science but it is provable!
This_person
Well-Known Member
Demonstrate how evolution is, by the same standards. I know you keep ignoring the question, but that doesn't make it go away.
T
tiny_dancer33
Guest
This might already have been said before somewhere in the 35 pages (haha), but I don't think something can be considered empirical scientific theory if it is impossible for it to proven wrong, ironically. Most people come at the argument from a "well if evolution/creationism is true, then prove it," but the fact that you have scientific research on something does not make it science. The question is, is it testable. The answer with evolution/Darwinian theory is yes. It is possible that it is wrong, and it could be proved wrong one day through experimentation and research. Creationism/ID, on the other hand, can not be tested or proved wrong because it is based on the un-testable concept of a divine power. No research will ever be able to disprove the existence of God/deity and the existence of God/deity is not empirically testable, research will never find anything solidly to the contrary. Therefore, it is not a scientific theory simply because it is based on something that is not at all theoretical or scientific - a God. :shrug:
Last edited by a moderator:
This_person
Well-Known Member
Since this has yet to be demonstrated, please demonstrate what that test would be, regarding humans. No one has ever performed a test of evolution regarding humans, nor even regarding how one could form all of the different life-forms from a single cell, so I'd be interested to hear what you have to say regarding this.
Also, I'd be happy to hear what the test is regarding abiogenesis - you know, something to have originated the life for evolution to have occurred.
Thanks!
T
tiny_dancer33
Guest
I'm no biologist, and I won't pretend to be. I'm not going to present biological studies on evolution that I've researched out of textbooks or the Internet because that's not my point. Speak with an evolutionary specialist for the answers to those questions. I'm not thinking of this on a technical level, just a logical one:
My original point remains that, as you and many creationists have surely stated, that evolution is capable of being proved wrong. It is fundamentally possible for it to be disproved through scientific research, right? That's why it is considered a scientific theory, because it is tangible and can be studied.
Creationism, on the other hand, cannot be proved wrong because it is based on a belief or conviction that a supreme being exists. Though scientific research may be shown supporting this view (floods, 6000 years, faulty carbon dating, any of the other arguments that support creationism/ID), it can never be disproved because one who believes in this conviction can simply say "But our being cannot be scientifically studied." Therefore, it cannot be considered science, it can only be considered a faith because there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a God.
I'm sorry that this is coming out kind of jumbled sounding, but it's really a very simple argument. It's based on something that can't be researched or discovered or experimented on (God) so it isn't science.
My original point remains that, as you and many creationists have surely stated, that evolution is capable of being proved wrong. It is fundamentally possible for it to be disproved through scientific research, right? That's why it is considered a scientific theory, because it is tangible and can be studied.
Creationism, on the other hand, cannot be proved wrong because it is based on a belief or conviction that a supreme being exists. Though scientific research may be shown supporting this view (floods, 6000 years, faulty carbon dating, any of the other arguments that support creationism/ID), it can never be disproved because one who believes in this conviction can simply say "But our being cannot be scientifically studied." Therefore, it cannot be considered science, it can only be considered a faith because there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a God.
I'm sorry that this is coming out kind of jumbled sounding, but it's really a very simple argument. It's based on something that can't be researched or discovered or experimented on (God) so it isn't science.
Last edited by a moderator:
This_person
Well-Known Member
Actually, no. Without a time machine, it is fundamentally IMPOSSIBLE to "prove" evolution of humans, unless you can take nothingness and start your own universe, and create the conditions that existed for life to occur here (once you can prove what those were), and then set all of the same conditions over the years, and create humankind from that. Other than that, the best you can do is speculate. I'm not saying it can be proven wrong, just that it cannot be proven true, and cannot be tested with regards to humans. Thus, it does not meet it's own stated requirement to call it science in a class, and as such should not be taught as something it's not.
Your same reasoning for saying ID cannot be a science works for evolution as well. That's why I asked for the test - none have ever existed, nor is there any belief it ever will.
T
tiny_dancer33
Guest
I think you're missing what I mean again. I'm not saying that there is a way to prove that evolution is the correct theory. I'm not saying that there is, currently and to our knowledge, some scientific test to perform on fossils, humans, anything that could disprove it as a valid theory. What I'm saying is that evolution is based only on science. Faulty science? That's up to you to decide for yourself.
Creationism/ID, on the other hand, has at its heart an unscientific core, and I don't mean that in a negative way. The theory of evolution was developed based on science. The theory of creationism or intelligent design, and all of the studies surrounding it, stems from a belief that came from no study, no observation, no tests, no experimentation, unlike other scientific theories (not just evolution, anything).
Therefore, no, my same reasoning does not disqualify evolution as a scientific theory. A theory must be falsifiable. Creationism is not falsifiable because its basis is a non-falsifiable belief. The same is not true of evolution at all.
Creationism/ID, on the other hand, has at its heart an unscientific core, and I don't mean that in a negative way. The theory of evolution was developed based on science. The theory of creationism or intelligent design, and all of the studies surrounding it, stems from a belief that came from no study, no observation, no tests, no experimentation, unlike other scientific theories (not just evolution, anything).
Therefore, no, my same reasoning does not disqualify evolution as a scientific theory. A theory must be falsifiable. Creationism is not falsifiable because its basis is a non-falsifiable belief. The same is not true of evolution at all.
This_person
Well-Known Member
No, I'm fully understanding you. I'm saying that there is no science in evolution. It's conjecture, not science. The reason it's not is the exact same reason ID has been denied as science - there is no repeatable, peer reviewable test for it. None. Zero. If you find one, let me know, but there's not. It's not based on science, it's based on a guess turned into a faith.
I'd be happy for you to show me the study, the test, the experimentation, that demonstrates a daughter species that is higher evolved, more complex, than it's parent species The heart of human evolution comes from the reflexion of an old man that so many species look alike for no reason, hence they must have had the same ancestors and mutated into what they are today from that source. And, taking it back through eons of time, the original source for it all was a single cell. Well, for a single cell to have mutated through enough generations to become the 99% of life that no longer exists, plus all of life now (that makes up that last 1%), then a single cell must demonstratably be able to mutate into plants, animals, insects, etc., etc. Nothing, not a single test ever (let alone repeated) has ever demonstrated anything close to this. The entire thing is based upon bats wings and hands being similar in design - sorry, appearance - with no immediately understandable reason.
However dumb an idea it is is not the point, though. The point is that evolution fails the science test it demands of other concepts to be considered science.
Evolution is no more provable nor falsifiable than ID. They have the exact same basis - human guess.
tommyjones
New Member
the problem you are having is that you are arguing with someone who lacks comprehension of the scientific method, thats why the comparisions to creationism and ID. to any science minded person the differences are apparent.
T
tiny_dancer33
Guest
No...that's still not what I mean. *frustration* I'm not saying that I or anyone can prove evolution. I'm not saying that you or anyone can prove creationism. And I'm not talking about bats' wings or hands or daughter species. I'm talking about logic and the definition of a scientific theory.
Evolution may not be any more provable than ID (in my opinion and the opinion of many others, it is, but that's not for me to tell you and that's not fact). But it is more falsifiable. And that's what makes it scientific. Most creationists will not acknowledge that their deity can be tested - He cannot be detected, or studied, there are no fossils or anything, and that doesn't matter because no matter how little proof there is the deity's existence cannot be disproved. That is the difference.
I happen to believe that evolution is based on (educated) human guess, yes, to a certain extent. Creationism, however, is not. There is no guesswork involved. The concept was created based on a non-scientific, non-theoretical belief. That is what I mean. I'm sorry, I'm trying to be as clear as possible. Your responses are all very well put-together, but they don't match my original post's intent. My argument is not the usual "evolution has more proof than creationism." My argument is not even that one is more valid than the other. My argument is that one, however faulty it may seem to you, is science, and the other, no matter how you look at it, can never fit that definition.
...That's all.
Last edited by a moderator:
Xaquin44
New Member
He doesn't care.
He is being purposely ignorant.
He's been shown many links to evidence both for and against evolution and refuses to accept it as science.
It's pointless to try and agrue with someone who is being stupid on purpose.
edit: aahhaha purposefully
oh me, I can't spell sometimes.
He is being purposely ignorant.
He's been shown many links to evidence both for and against evolution and refuses to accept it as science.
It's pointless to try and agrue with someone who is being stupid on purpose.
edit: aahhaha purposefully
oh me, I can't spell sometimes.
Last edited:
This_person
Well-Known Member
Enlighten me. Tell me where I'm wrong.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I take the science and dispute that it proves what you say it proves, using the science and the report you link me to. Facts are hard to refute, that's why you continue to ignore the discussion. Once you were shown the error of your position, you lost interest.
Again, I ask you to point me to the test that demonstrates that humans evolved from something else, or that it has even been shown to be possible by having a test, repeatable as demanded of ID, that shows a daughter species more evolved than the parent species. I know you can't do it, because it hasn't happened yet. It's not that I'm being ignorant, it's that I'm informed.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Define scientific theory for me, then. And, I brought up hands and bat's wings because that was a founding principle for Darwin to come up with his musing.
Again, I implore you, show me the test. To disprove something, one must have a method to disprove (see your argument regarding ID for explanation). So, if there is no method of evolution (which there's not), there's nothing to disprove, either. One cannot disprove conjecture-without-method. There is NO test of human evolution, for nor against. You keep telling me there's a science, tell me what it is.
Again, I understand your point, and I'm answering that point. I'm disputing it. There is NO science to evolution, as there is no test possible for human evolution. Again, if you want to teach the micro-evolution of bacteria, go for it, I won't dispute it. However, if you want to teach human evolution, devise a test that is repeatable and peer reviewed. It hasn't happened yet, and never will, thus it is not science. There has been repeated mentions of moths that people think changed color over time, but that's not a repeatable test. There have been links to bacteria changing what they can imbibe, but that's not a test of a single-celled organism becoming plant, animal, insect, etc., let alone human evolution. It's bacterial distortions due to ______, well, they don't know what caused it. Nothing comes close to testing human evolution - Tommy and Xa notwithstanding.
T
tiny_dancer33
Guest
...Yeah, okay. I'm tired of repeating myself at this point. You said you understand what I mean, and then you keep asking me the same thing ("show me the test") because either you really don't get what I'm trying to say, or you just don't know how to respond. I'm not really sure how many more times I can say that I'm not claiming there is a test, and even if there were, my point is not that evolution can be irrefutably proved.
A scientific theory is something that can be tested, researched, discovered, tangibly experimented on or studied, and can be both supported and refuted with scientific claims. Evolutionary theory can be researched and studied through scientific observation, and scienctific research can both support and refute it. (Again, whether or not you agree with those observations is not my point.) A god or the existence of a god cannot be subjected to any of those, especially not a refutal, because the existence of a god is a belief or conviction not subject to observational study. And therefore should not be taught in class where the subject is observational study or experimentation - a science class.
...I'm done here. Your next post will probably just say the same thing anyway. =/
A scientific theory is something that can be tested, researched, discovered, tangibly experimented on or studied, and can be both supported and refuted with scientific claims. Evolutionary theory can be researched and studied through scientific observation, and scienctific research can both support and refute it. (Again, whether or not you agree with those observations is not my point.) A god or the existence of a god cannot be subjected to any of those, especially not a refutal, because the existence of a god is a belief or conviction not subject to observational study. And therefore should not be taught in class where the subject is observational study or experimentation - a science class.
...I'm done here. Your next post will probably just say the same thing anyway. =/
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyjones
New Member
thats his M.O.
keep repeating his misunderstanding until you give up, he has only been doing it for 40 pages now........
T
tiny_dancer33
Guest
Kinda makes me wish I'd caught on sooner.