Rejecting evolution with science...

[DJ...]

There is just as much proof to convince me of my faith as what there is to convince me of evolution.

Different types of evidence are treated very differently, by me at least. Religious evidence can only ever be anecdotal while we have empirical evidence for evolution. I certainly wouldn't equate anecdotal and empirical evidence as being on equal footing, and therefore religion and evolution by my standards are in no way comparable in terms of evidence...

 

[Other Pineapple Smurf]

You mean subjective 'evidence' that convinces every religious person of their particular faith vs. the objective evidence for evolution that is the same for everyone?

No

Both are for me objective. If you require subjective evidence to convince you your religious or scientific view, then you need to relook at them.

Don't Atheists also have a religious view point?

 

[copacetic]

Never mind that the concept of faith completely removes the need for any proof, by definition.

 

[Other Pineapple Smurf]

Different types of evidence are treated very differently, by me at least. Religious evidence can only ever be anecdotal while we have empirical evidence for evolution. I certainly wouldn't equate anecdotal and empirical evidence as being on equal footing, and therefore religion and evolution by my standards are in no way comparable in terms of evidence...

Your entitled to your opinion and so do I.

(Not my intention to derail with religion but I do find that those that try to disprove evolution with science most likely have a religious agenda.)

 

[OrbitalDawn]

No

Both are for me objective. If you require subjective evidence to convince you your religious or scientific view, then you need to relook at them.

That's demonstrably false, unfortunately.

Unless you'd like to provide this 'objective' evidence that convinced you of your faith? Anecdotes about religious experiences and miracles won't cut it unfortunately.

Don't Atheists also have a religious view point?

Depends what you mean by 'religious view point'. I have a view point about religion, in that I am not religious. But I'm not sure if that's what you meant.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Not my intention to derail with religion but I do find that those that try to disprove evolution with science most likely have a religious agenda.

If it gets disproven, it will be done with science. Science is by nature self-correcting.

The problem isn't people wanting to disprove it, it's people who want to disprove it because of religious motivations, and then fail horribly to do so.

 

[Techne]

That's demonstrably false, unfortunately.

Unless you'd like to provide this 'objective' evidence that convinced you of your faith? Anecdotes about religious experiences and miracles won't cut it unfortunately.

Data is objective, evidence is subjective.

 

[Techne]

Never mind that the concept of faith completely removes the need for any proof, by definition.

You say it like it is a bad thing. You can pretty much say the same thing for empirical science. I.e. empirical sciences completely removes the need for any proof, by definition. Empirical science use data to make hypotheses and theories, it does not need proof.

 

[DJ...]

Your entitled to your opinion and so do I.

It's not simply an opinion. What empirical evidence of your religion do you have? Or are you implying that science is not based on empirical evidence?

(I'm not having a dig at you. I'm genuinely curious)

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Data is objective, evidence is subjective.

That sounds like a subjective statement to me.

 

[RiaX]

Guys, please just ignore Swa. I am 99% certain he is just a professional troll.

+1

That said, I will concede that by my definition of proof, nothing can be proven experimentally.

said like a true mathematician lol. Unfortunately wrong

 

[Techne]

+1



said like a true mathematician lol. Unfortunately wrong

Please try and explain how you will go about proving something using empirical science...

 

[Jehosefat]

said like a true mathematician lol. Unfortunately wrong

Not wrong at all. All you can "prove" experimentally is that something is more likely to be true than false based on available evidence. At no point is anything proven to be true (or false for that matter). If you really want to keep going we can start digging in to how easily your "proof" can be skewed by poor experimental design or sample bias.

Or we could agree to disagree on our definitions of proof?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Not wrong at all. All you can "prove" experimentally is that something is more likely to be true than false based on available evidence. At no point is anything proven to be true (or false for that matter). If you really want to keep going we can start digging in to how easily your "proof" can be skewed by poor experimental design or sample bias.

Or we could agree to disagree on our definitions of proof?

No need, really. He consistently refuses to change how he uses terms, even though he knows he's wrong.

 

[Swa]

Oh, boohoo. Not my fault you keep referencing morons. The dishonest buffoon lies and misrepresents other scientists routinely, but your faith in him won't dwindle. He's a fellow IDer, so why would you question him? His blatant dishonesty and clearly stated religious agenda makes me suspicious of anything he says. Especially regarding something as loony as a global scientist conspiracy.

And all you can do is dish out ad hominems without actually showing why you think they're wrong. Quite disgusting behaviour actually.

Pretty much every book published in support of ID is almost universally panned, because of it's vacuity, its lack of scientific rigor, its dishonesty, its misrepresentation of the work of others and its clear inability to stand on its own merit. All they constantly do is attack evolution, as if that somehow lends credence to their own crackpot failed hypothesis.

Pretty much every book on ID is blatantly misrepresented as you are doing here.

Not wrong at all. All you can "prove" experimentally is that something is more likely to be true than false based on available evidence. At no point is anything proven to be true (or false for that matter). If you really want to keep going we can start digging in to how easily your "proof" can be skewed by poor experimental design or sample bias.

Or we could agree to disagree on our definitions of proof?

You seem to think that proof means without a doubt. If someone is proven guilty does that mean they definitely committed the crime?

 

[RiaX]

Not wrong at all. All you can "prove" experimentally is that something is more likely to be true than false based on available evidence. At no point is anything proven to be true (or false for that matter). If you really want to keep going we can start digging in to how easily your "proof" can be skewed by poor experimental design or sample bias.

Or we could agree to disagree on our definitions of proof?

yes that is true. However if you want to prove that gravity exists would dropping a ball at a height not demonstrate the effect of gravity and hence prove that it exists. It wont however EXPLAIN why it exists or detail gravity itself. So from that you can say gravity is an attraction of two masses this is the law of gravity and its FACT and was proven fact by simple observation. It was later detailed using mathematics and extended into warp of space-time by Einstein which is theory. So why gravity is a force that can extend unimaginable distances no one knows. What is the carrier for gravity no one has proven it. However it still remains as fact that gravity is an attractive force between matter. Its proven by simply dropping something from a height.

There is no point barking scientific models and protocols, when you dont understand your question or how valid are these models are to your study and field. Sometimes you can generate factual results without even using a control.

Gravity as a concept = fact
Description of gravity on earth = calculated mathematically
How gravity works = theory (can be further broken down into quantum and general mechanics)

you cant suddenly blend all of these aspects together of equal weight, each one is a different question and requires its OWN experimental setup, they can integrate with each yes but they are separate entities

so to my original example:

does drug A work = yes it shows superior effect over a placebo
how the drug works = unknown

but does that unknown factor change the fact that drug A works ? no it doesnt - the clinical trial has without a doubt proven that drug A works.

Antibiotic pyrazinamide will tell you in its package insert "its unknown" yet it kills bacteria in vivo and in vitro and is used to treat TB and is one of the main agents in first line treatment. The fact that its unknown on its MoA does not change the fact that it kills bacteria. No matter what you do mathematically, theoretically that antibiotic will always kill the bacteria that are susceptible to it. You can change its proposed mechanism a million times but that statement will never change and hence is fact.

EDIT:

however this again doesnt hold in biology, as I said earlier the scientific model is modified depending on the field its applied.

people often forget there are NO absolutes in science, that includes the method of science itself

 

[Swa]

Summary of the thread:
Proof for evolution so far...

 

[RiaX]

ok swa

 

[Techne]

yes that is true. However if you want to prove that gravity exists would dropping a ball at a height not demonstrate the effect of gravity and hence prove that it exists.

It would demonstrate that two objects are attracted to each other. It does not prove gravity exists. Gravity is a postulated force that is the cause of this attraction (a force proportional to their masses). In other words, the evidence suggest that there is a force (i.e. gravity) that causes two objects of mass to be attracted to each other. The evidence is not proof of gravity. If you want proof, use mathematics or metaphysics. Here are one of the first attempts to prove gravity (mathematically) using empirical observation (i.e. evidence).
http://echo.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/ECH...iwg/online/permanent/library/XXTBUC3U/pageimg

so to my original example:

does drug A work = yes it shows superior effect over a placebo
how the drug works = unknown

but does that unknown factor change the fact that drug A works ? no it doesnt - the clinical trial has without a doubt proven that drug A works.

It works with a certain degree of certainty. I.e. the evidence suggest it works. This does not imply that it is proven to work unless you have some sort of mathematical (as in the case of Newton's law) or metaphysical proof (e.g. Aquinas' Second Way).

Antibiotic pyrazinamide will tell you in its package insert "its unknown" yet it kills bacteria in vivo and in vitro and is used to treat TB and is one of the main agents in first line treatment. The fact that its unknown on its MoA does not change the fact that it kills bacteria. No matter what you do mathematically, theoretically that antibiotic will always kill the bacteria that are susceptible to it. You can change its proposed mechanism a million times but that statement will never change and hence is fact.

Err, they are not entirely clueless about its MoA.

 

[Humberto]

Another explanation for why one object falls towards another is that one reference frame is accelerating relative to the other, not necessarily due to gravity.

A spaceship accelerating in space at a rate of 9.8 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP] would cause objects inside the spaceship to fall as they would on Earth, not due to gravity however.

Gravity may be simulated in space using a rotating spaceship, the resulting centrifugal force causing the necessary acceleration.

Image: Wikimedia Commons