Why Does Evolutionary Science Only Believe In Things In Which There Is No Evidence?

[gfm7175]

[Q

you left out how they determined the house was there in 1950???

the answer is someone knew it was there so NO that is not circular reasoning,,,and that in no way proves they died in 1950 ,,,its all assumption

but with rocks they assume they were there millions of yrs ago without any proof

You hit on the flaw.

My example assumed that nobody had any record of when the house was built but just guessed. Not much different that the Geological Time Charts that lays out the epochs.

The Geological Time Charts were invented in the 18th century by scientists that actually had very limited data. Since then everything has been conveniently fitted into the charts including dating fossils by sedimentary rock and sedimentary rock by fossils. Not much different than somebody just guessing on the age of the house in my example.

For the record. I believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.I believe that there has been life for a billion years and more advanced life for a half billion years.

However, that doesn't mean there are not serious flaws in our understanding of the history of the earth.

The fossil and sedimentary record is a great example of circular logic and the flaws we have in science.

Yup, one can hold your beliefs, yet recognize the logical flaws in dating methods.

 

[gfm7175]

you do realize you just described a religion???

Yes, he described (and showed why it is) a religion, but not for the reasoning you think.

belief without proof in the face of clear flaws in logic,,,

This is not what a religion is. Religion doesn't have to involve the rejection of logic in any way. Religion, plain and simple, is "an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it". There is nothing wrong with religion; only when one attempts to prove it. That commits the circular argument fallacy and makes one into a fundamentalist.

as for what I believe,,,well I dont because evo has clear flaws and flat out lies and I havent achieved the faith it takes to believe in creation

The Theory of Evolution is a religion. So is the Theory of Creation. So is the Theory of Abiogenesis. They all are based on initial circular arguments. They all cannot be falsified in any currently accessible manner. They remain circular arguments; they remain religions.

with that said there are clear traits of intelligent design and thats where I lean at this point,,,

I also hold your belief of intelligent design. My belief is that there is a creator god behind it all (specifically, the Christian God). That may or may not be true (same with intelligent design itself).

 

[gfm7175]

[Q

you left out how they determined the house was there in 1950???

the answer is someone knew it was there so NO that is not circular reasoning,,,and that in no way proves they died in 1950 ,,,its all assumption

but with rocks they assume they were there millions of yrs ago without any proof

You hit on the flaw.

My example assumed that nobody had any record of when the house was built but just guessed. Not much different that the Geological Time Charts that lays out the epochs.

The Geological Time Charts were invented in the 18th century by scientists that actually had very limited data. Since then everything has been conveniently fitted into the charts including dating fossils by sedimentary rock and sedimentary rock by fossils. Not much different than somebody just guessing on the age of the house in my example.

For the record. I believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.I believe that there has been life for a billion years and more advanced life for a half billion years.

However, that doesn't mean there are not serious flaws in our understanding of the history of the earth.

The fossil and sedimentary record is a great example of circular logic and the flaws we have in science.

You are providing a good example of someone who is embarrassed of his own faith. Instead of just marching under your true flag of faith, you perform this little song and dance by which you pretend there is evidence that causes you to doubt our scientific knowledge. And even when shown you are saying false things, you persist. You would rather be wrong and embarrass yourself by saying false things about science than just admit you dont know anything about it and don't care to know anything about it, because your faith dictates your beliefs.

Think about that. You are so embarrassed of your faith that you find it less embarrassing to say things that would get you laughed out of a science class.

everything you just said can and does apply to the religion of evolution,,,

Correct. He is a fundamentalist of his evolution faith. If I recall correctly, he is also a fundamentalist of his atheist faith. He commits circular argument fallacies and argument from ignorance fallacies on a regular basis due to his religious fundamentalism.

 

[gfm7175]

Science is better thought of as a PROCESS. Of taking observation, developing theories to explain those observations, then testing them to find out their veracity or not.

Science is not a process. It is, plain and simple, a set of falsifiable theories.

And there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence to support evolution as the natural process for the origin of species.

A "mountain" of supporting evidence doesn't in any way bless, sanctify, nor otherwise make holy, any theory of science. Science only concerns itself with conflicting evidence, as that is what falsifies theories.

Evolution is not science; it is religion. Evolution is based on the initial circular argument that current life forms are a result of mutations of earlier life forms. We have no way to go back in time to see whether these earliest life forms actually mutated or not, so Evolution remains an argument of faith (a circular argument).

What HAS been falsified, however, is the related theory, the theory of natural selection. Extending that theory to its logical conclusion would result in a single "perfect selection", as the variety becomes less and less. Essentially, this theory argues a paradox, as it would reduce the very variety it needs to select from. It is also falsified by the existence of animals with traits that do not help them survive, such as the albino trait.

 

[gfm7175]

Science is a thing.
It doesn't believe anything .
Therefore the question in the title doesn't actually make sense.

Science is better thought of as a PROCESS. Of taking observation, developing theories to explain those observations, then testing them to find out their veracity or not. And there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence to support evolution as the natural process for the origin of species.

the flaw in your reasoning is that no one has ever once observed evolution,,
no one has ever seen life form from non living matter or any species giving birth to anything other than their kind or observed layers in strata forming over millions of yrs


so in light of these facts evolution is pure make believe mixed with bold faced lies,,,

You are correct in noting one flaw in his reasoning. And that flaw is why it is not science, but rather, a religion. We can't go back in time to see what actually happened with those earliest life forms. In addition, observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology (a branch of philosophy). One could observe the same thing, use the same data, yet come to a completely different conclusion about said observation. Reality is colored by our individual perceptions of the universe and how it works. It is uniquely experienced by each of us.

I will add that, contrary to what you claimed, evolution is not "pure make believe". It may or may not be true. We simply do not know, as there is no way to falsify the theory. It can only be accepted or rejected on a faith basis.

 

[deanrd]

It’s interesting the way the person that started this thread categorizes evolutionary science as a belief.

 

[progressive hunter]

Science is a thing.
It doesn't believe anything .
Therefore the question in the title doesn't actually make sense.

Science is better thought of as a PROCESS. Of taking observation, developing theories to explain those observations, then testing them to find out their veracity or not. And there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence to support evolution as the natural process for the origin of species.

the flaw in your reasoning is that no one has ever once observed evolution,,
no one has ever seen life form from non living matter or any species giving birth to anything other than their kind or observed layers in strata forming over millions of yrs


so in light of these facts evolution is pure make believe mixed with bold faced lies,,,

You are correct in noting one flaw in his reasoning. And that flaw is why it is not science, but rather, a religion. We can't go back in time to see what actually happened with those earliest life forms. In addition, observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology (a branch of philosophy). One could observe the same thing, use the same data, yet come to a completely different conclusion about said observation. Reality is colored by our individual perceptions of the universe and how it works. It is uniquely experienced by each of us.

I will add that, contrary to what you claimed, evolution is not "pure make believe". It may or may not be true. We simply do not know, as there is no way to falsify the theory. It can only be accepted or rejected on a faith basis.

on several aspects is it easy to show its wrong,,,

take the claim that no human has ever seen a dinosaur,,,there are footprints of humans found along side dino tracks all over the world,,,

and what about the thousands of written and illustrated claims dating back thousands of yrs??? cant have those unless they saw them first hand,,,,

 

[Flash]

Science is better thought of as a PROCESS. Of taking observation, developing theories to explain those observations, then testing them to find out their veracity or not.

Science is not a process. It is, plain and simple, a set of falsifiable theories.

And there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence to support evolution as the natural process for the origin of species.

A "mountain" of supporting evidence doesn't in any way bless, sanctify, nor otherwise make holy, any theory of science. Science only concerns itself with conflicting evidence, as that is what falsifies theories.

Evolution is not science; it is religion. Evolution is based on the initial circular argument that current life forms are a result of mutations of earlier life forms. We have no way to go back in time to see whether these earliest life forms actually mutated or not, so Evolution remains an argument of faith (a circular argument).

What HAS been falsified, however, is the related theory, the theory of natural selection. Extending that theory to its logical conclusion would result in a single "perfect selection", as the variety becomes less and less. Essentially, this theory argues a paradox, as it would reduce the very variety it needs to select from. It is also falsified by the existence of animals with traits that do not help them survive, such as the albino trait.

As someone who strongly believes in God I am not bothered by the idea of evolution. God created a magnificent universe with all kinds of wondrous things in it.

I don't even think it conflicts with the Bible. The Book of Genesis where the story of Creation is told is neither a Science or History book. It is a book about the relationship between Man and God.

The idea that I have heard being attributed to fundamentalist that the earth is only 6K years old is not really supported by any fact in science or even in the Bible. It is a theory by one leader in the church several hundred years ago. Trying to figure out the age of the earth by backtracking the genealogy mentioned in the Bible may be a fun thing to do if you are bored but has no foundation in reality.

Like you I am also bothered about the circular logic and flaws I see in science with the Epoch charts. The more I learn about them the more I can see it is not supported by real science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course, the ages of the strata are well established via radiometric dating and do not rely on the fossils. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know anything about it.

 

[progressive hunter]

Of course, the ages of the strata are well established via radiometric dating and do not rely on the fossils. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know anything about it.

sorry but it can t date that far back and is also subject to false readings

 

[gfm7175]

on several aspects is it easy to show its wrong,,,

take the claim that no human has ever seen a dinosaur,,,there are footprints of humans found along side dino tracks all over the world,,,

and what about the thousands of written and illustrated claims dating back thousands of yrs??? cant have those unless they saw them first hand,,,,

The claim that no human has ever seen a dinosaur can't be proven or disproven. The footprints of humans alongside dinosaur tracks (as well as all the thousands of years old written and illustrated claims) is evidence only. Evidence is not a proof.

Evolution is unfalsifiable (therefore, a religion) and can only be accepted/rejected on a faith basis. It may or may not be true. I personally believe that it is true (albeit my faith is weak).

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course, the ages of the strata are well established via radiometric dating and do not rely on the fossils. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know anything about it.

sorry but it can t date that far back and is also subject to false readings

Lie and lie. I would say you are just mistaken, but that wouldnt be accurate. When you make up false things and say them, those are lies.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolution is unfalsifiabl

False.

 

[progressive hunter]

on several aspects is it easy to show its wrong,,,

take the claim that no human has ever seen a dinosaur,,,there are footprints of humans found along side dino tracks all over the world,,,

and what about the thousands of written and illustrated claims dating back thousands of yrs??? cant have those unless they saw them first hand,,,,

The claim that no human has ever seen a dinosaur can't be proven or disproven. The footprints of humans alongside dinosaur tracks (as well as all the thousands of years old written and illustrated claims) is evidence only. Evidence is not a proof.

Evolution is unfalsifiable (therefore, a religion) and can only be accepted/rejected on a faith basis. It may or may not be true. I personally believe that it is true (albeit my faith is weak).

well its evidence that they coexisted and based on how many there are it can be considered proof,,,which undermines everything evolution claims

 

[progressive hunter]

Of course, the ages of the strata are well established via radiometric dating and do not rely on the fossils. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know anything about it.

sorry but it can t date that far back and is also subject to false readings

Lie and lie. I would say you are just mistaken, but that wouldnt be accurate. When you make up false things and say them, those are lies.

well thats better than the shit you just make up and claim those that disagree are ignorant or liars,,,

sorry but the facts dont fall your way,,,

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course, the ages of the strata are well established via radiometric dating and do not rely on the fossils. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know anything about it.

sorry but it can t date that far back and is also subject to false readings

Lie and lie. I would say you are just mistaken, but that wouldnt be accurate. When you make up false things and say them, those are lies.

well thats better than the shit you just make up and claim those that disagree are ignorant or liars,,,

sorry but the facts dont fall your way,,,

As if you could name any of your life depended on it, attention begging troll....

 

[progressive hunter]

Of course, the ages of the strata are well established via radiometric dating and do not rely on the fossils. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know anything about it.

sorry but it can t date that far back and is also subject to false readings

Lie and lie. I would say you are just mistaken, but that wouldnt be accurate. When you make up false things and say them, those are lies.

well thats better than the shit you just make up and claim those that disagree are ignorant or liars,,,

sorry but the facts dont fall your way,,,

As if you could name any of your life depended on it, attention begging troll....

so youre admitting you have no facts,,, just speculation based on assumptions,,,

I already knew that,,,

and what facts would you like??
I already proved man and dinos coexisted which undermines all of evolution,,,

 

[gfm7175]

As someone who strongly believes in God

If you are referring to the Christian God, which I assume you are, then we both have strong faith in the same God. I am a believer that Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is (per the Holy Bible).

I am not bothered by the idea of evolution. God created a magnificent universe with all kinds of wondrous things in it.

Indeed he has! He truly is an awesome God!

I, like you, am not bothered by the theory of evolution. As is the case with my Christian faith, Evolution may or may not be true. It can only be accepted/rejected on a faith basis. Personally, I accept the theory of evolution to be true (albeit, with a much weaker faith than the strong faith of which I accept the Christian God to be true).

I don't even think it conflicts with the Bible. The Book of Genesis where the story of Creation is told is neither a Science or History book. It is a book about the relationship between Man and God.

You are correct in that it does not conflict with the Bible. The Theory of Evolution in no way contradicts with Christianity; neither does the Big Bang Theory. I have no issues with that theory either (as, likewise with Evolution, it may or may not be true; we simply do not know). I, however, personally remain an agnostic with regard to the Big Bang Theory (ie, I don't accept OR reject it). Genesis doesn't get into any specifics concerning those matters, just that God is the source of all creation.

The idea that I have heard being attributed to fundamentalist that the earth is only 6K years old is not really supported by any fact in science or even in the Bible. It is a theory by one leader in the church several hundred years ago. Trying to figure out the age of the earth by backtracking the genealogy mentioned in the Bible may be a fun thing to do if you are bored but has no foundation in reality.

Correct again. The 6K years old thing may or may not be true. We simply do not know the age of the Earth, and The Bible doesn't say how old it is either. Usually, the 6Kers believe in a literal six day [24 hour days] creation (7th day God rested). I personally do not hold that belief; I believe that each day could be any extended period of time, and believe that we are currently living in the 7th day mentioned in Genesis. Maybe the Earth is 6K years old, maybe it is millions/billions of years old... We simply do not know how old it is.

Like you I am also bothered about the circular logic and flaws I see in science with the Epoch charts. The more I learn about them the more I can see it is not supported by real science.

Agreed. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. If there is no accessible way to falsify a theory, then it is not a theory of science, but rather, a religious theory.

Many people seem to think that if a theory is supported by evidence, if it is rigorously tested, peer reviewed, published in an acceptable publication, determined by consensus, etc. etc. etc., then that theory magickally becomes a theory of science. That's not how science works...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

so youre admitting you have no facts

Not once did i say anything iimplying that. I see we have us another shameless little liar.

I already proved man and dinos coexisted

Haha....no you didn't, you embarrassing little freak..

 

[gfm7175]

Evolution is unfalsifiabl

False.

Yes, I am aware that you are a fundamentalist of the Evolution religion... we've been through this... We have no way of seeing what happened all those millions of years ago... if those earliest life forms actually mutated or not...