Jump to content


Photo

Evolutionists And Understanding The Scientific Method


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 10 February 2016 - 09:34 PM

Whilst I was driving to the public library I was wondering about the aforementioned title to this thread. I was thinking about how evolutionists can claim to understand science and how it operates and yet still claim that evolution is "scientific"?

Considering that since the (assumed) evolution of man is a PAST event, and that the past cannot be experimented on then it would seem that such assumptions (read beliefs) are thus NOT scientific....

This, to me, demonstrates a lack of understanding with how science operates (aka the scientific method)... Which in itself is ironic considering how many evolutionists deem themselves the intelligentsia of the universe.


Would it be possible that the posing of many evolutionists as the 'intelligentsia of the universe' be an attempt to cover their inability to understand science? Is it all just a confidence trick?
  • Enoch 2021 likes this

#2 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 65
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 12 February 2016 - 09:30 AM

Gilbo, you echo my thoughts.

 

At the risk of being a one-trick pony here, ever since I returned to this board after years of absence my main emphasis has been on getting evos here to address the scientific method issues you just posted about.

 

At one point, based on my experience with evos in the past, I mentioned that some evos admit they cannot, do not, or don't need to use the scientific method in their proof of the theory of evolution. Of course I came under a great deal of ridicule, and even got called a liar for that statement.

 

The funny thing is that when I turned the challenge against them and asked the evos to go ahead and show how the theory of evolution can be proven using the scientific method it was met with absolute, utter, sheer silence.

 

 

Would it be possible that the posing of many evolutionists as the 'intelligentsia of the universe' be an attempt to cover their inability to understand science? Is it all just a confidence trick?

 

So, to answer your question: I do not underestimate the intelligence of those whose scientific knowledge far exceeds my own. But, there's more to intelligence than just being a mindless robot parroting "scientific" information. I've found that one's worldview plays a huge part in how one uses one's intelligence to interpret what they know.

 

What we have discovered by my fruitless quest to get a response to my scientific method challenge is that there is a point beyond which evos simply cannot go because to do so would be to show the world that their belief in evolution is based on pure faith and not science.

 

They really only have two choices: Prove the theory of evolution using the scientific method, or admit that the scientific method does not apply to the theory of evolution (and thus is not scientific).

 

It turns out, for the evos on this forum anyway, that they'd rather cower down and debate minutia than put everything on the line and answer this important, simple question.

 

So, no, I don't believe it is a confidence trick. I believe they are simply afraid to be honest. It's part and parcel of their materialistic, Godless worldview.

 

Sorry about my response. Based on recent history here, it will probably be the kiss of death for this topic. :)



#3 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 451 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 13 February 2016 - 02:08 PM

Considering that since the (assumed) evolution of man is a PAST event, and that the past cannot be experimented on then it would seem that such assumptions (read beliefs) are thus NOT scientific....

 

A past event is not exempt from scientific investigation; both historical and operational science are, science. 

 

While we can't go into a magical time machine and do a physical experiment in the past, we can observe the effects of the past and make predictions and do tests on what we ought observe given a hypothesis/theory about a past event. Recall that science is not interested in "proof", but supporting evidence. 

 

I'm short on time but a quick example of this in regards to human evolution would be the observation that we have 23 pairs of chromosomes while the rest of the apes have 24. Scientists made a hypothesis that if evolution is true then there must have been a chromosomal fusion in our lineage and we will find evidence of this by finding inactive/extra telomeres and centromeres where they shouldn't be in one of our chromosomes. We tested that hypothesis and found such evidence on our chromosome #2. 



#4 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,459 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 13 February 2016 - 02:20 PM

 

 

Goku: I'm short on time but a quick example of this in regards to human evolution would be the observation that we have 23 pairs of chromosomes while the rest of the apes have 24

 RED = question-begging-epithet, all of the evidence shows humanity is unique, and is evidence therefore that we are made in God's image.

 

 

 

Goku: Scientists made a hypothesis that if evolution is true then there must have been a chromosomal fusion in our lineage and we will find evidence of this by finding inactive/extra telomeres and centromeres where they shouldn't be in one of our chromosomes. We tested that hypothesis and found such evidence on our chromosome #2. 

 

Think about what you are saying. You are predicting that if I find X chromosomes in an ant, and X amount in a banana, and look for evidence of inactive telomeres, then essentially the ant had a common ancestor with the banana.

 

Goku, don't you know that my pet ant I named Goku-Fjuri, is missing a yellow skin,  like the rest of the bananas? :rotfl3:

 

:smashfreak: 

 

Though I do appreciate that you are claiming that historical/forensics can be categorized as "science" technically speaking as science can deal in reconstruction. Perhaps there is room for discussion/concession, there. (by the way you should know the telomere-baloney has been debunked for some time, there is evidence that allows us to also say that it may well have jack squat to do with evolution)

 

You need to think more critically of evolution-info, think about it, logically speaking the fact humans have 23 chromos and all apes have 24, is evidence we are not apes, as it is evidence of DIFFERENCE between apes and humans. So to take evidence that suggests we were never apes and say it somehow favours an ape-ancestry is really not a very smart argument when you think about it. The fact is an evolutionary prediction would be that we have 24. It is easy to say "evo would have predicted this" when you state it after the fact. (posteriori) Fact is we all know that evolution would have ideally predicted that humans had the same amount of chromos.



#5 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 65
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 13 February 2016 - 05:06 PM

Scientists made a hypothesis that if evolution is true then there must have been a chromosomal fusion in our lineage and we will find evidence of this by finding inactive/extra telomeres and centromeres where they shouldn't be in one of our chromosomes. We tested that hypothesis and found such evidence on our chromosome #2. 

 

Goku-the-ape, see this is what I mean about not correctly using the scientific method to arrive at a scientific conclusion.

 

If I may paraphrase what you are saying in the quote:

 

"We believe that evolution is true, therefore evidence of chromosomal fusion which we believe occurred via the evolutionary process must have happened via evolution. Therefore we conclude that the theory of evolution is true and validates our belief that man and apes arose from a common ancestor via evolution."

 

That's so circular and non-scientific, it's actually hilarious.

 

To put it in the proper scientific method perspective you should word it like this:

 

"We see evidence of chromosome 2 fusion in humans that gives humans 23 pairs. We also see no chromosome 2 fusion in apes, giving them 24 pairs. What possible explanation is there for the discrepancy between human and ape chromosomes?"

 

I guarantee you that an honest, objective scientific methodological approach to the question when asked correctly like that will not lead to the absolute determination of evolution as fact. But it will instead open the door wide open to a consideration from other than a materialistic-only mindset.

 

And, that's the rub. Materialistic-only scientists have been, are, and will always be working under the handicap of never, ever finding the truth of the matter because they are doing science with half their brains tied behind their backs.

 

Once again, Goku-the-ape, it all comes down to worldview. Your bias simply cannot let you accept any non-evolution-based answer to a correctly worded, objectively-asked scientific question.



#6 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 254 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 13 February 2016 - 08:54 PM

Gilbo, you echo my thoughts.
 
At the risk of being a one-trick pony here, ever since I returned to this board after years of absence my main emphasis has been on getting evos here to address the scientific method issues you just posted about.
 
At one point, based on my experience with evos in the past, I mentioned that some evos admit they cannot, do not, or don't need to use the scientific method in their proof of the theory of evolution. Of course I came under a great deal of ridicule, and even got called a liar for that statement.

I haven't seen any ridicule in that thread. As for calling you a liar: that was me. But the real phrase was: until you provide evidence for the statements you make I will call you a liar. No evidence has been provided. The moment you provide evidence, like alink, I will humbly apologise. But until so long I call you a liar.

#7 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 254 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 13 February 2016 - 08:58 PM

I'm short on time but a quick example of this in regards to human evolution would be the observation that we have 23 pairs of chromosomes while the rest of the apes have 24.

 RED = question-begging-epithet, all of the evidence shows humanity is unique, and is evidence therefore that we are made in God's image.

All species are unique. So humans are not special, or all species are special. Are all species made in god's image?

#8 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,014 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 13 February 2016 - 09:58 PM

 

 

Though I do appreciate that you are claiming that historical/forensics can be categorized as "science" technically speaking as science can deal in reconstruction. Perhaps there is room for discussion/concession, there.

 

 

 

No No No sir; and there's absolutely "No Room" for discussion and absolutely "No Room" for concession.  How on Earth can you even formulate a Formal Scientific Hypothesis with Historical/Forensics.... then TEST IT??  You don't know....what you don't know.

 

Are you saying something is Science without Scientific Hypotheses?  :huh:

 

In fact, you skipped the First Step of the Scientific Method: Observe a Phenomenon...

 

"No phenomenon is a phenomenon unless it is an observed phenomenon."
Niels Bohr (Nobel Prize, Physics), as quoted in; Science and Ultimate Reality. Quantum Theory, Cosmology and Complexity: Cambridge University Press, p. 209

 

You Observe "Nouns"/end results.  

 

And it's certainly not "Conjure a Phenomenon"!  It's  NOT just "OBSERVE" as in Observe "Nouns" (rock, fossil, et al)...you have to OBSERVE a "Phenomenon", an Action/Verb Tense.  And it has to be repeatable, it can't be a "One-Off" event...if so, How can you TEST it?

 
If you try and circumvent The Scientific Method and Hypothesize Observations of "Nouns", this is what you're reduced to (an example)...
 
I Observe a Tree "Noun". What's the Hypothesis.......? .....
 
How did this Tree Form? (Invalid, not Observed)
What circumstances led to this Tree growing in my backyard? (Invalid, not Observed)
The Tree formed by evolution. (Invalid, not Observed). And lol, you have an Invalid "Theory" in the Hypothesis.
 
OK what's the TEST? Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis, then please elucidate...
The Independent Variable and what are you measuring (Dependent Variable) ?
 
"You make a set of observations, then hypothesize an explanation which accounts for all of the observations."
http://www.cod.edu/p...her/scimeth.htm
 
OK lets Hypothesize an Explanation which accounts for ALL the Observations.... So with our Tree:
 
Since we just "Observe the Tree", how do we account for all the Observations? THIS IS YOUR ONLY RECOURSE (Each and every Time you just "Make an Observation" of Nouns): Your Hypothesis from the Train-wreck Observation...
 
[In the daytime] Open your Eyelids then billions of bits of data hit the Retina which the Photo-Receptors have to ENCODE then send to the Visual Cortex for DECODING (Symbolic Logic)--- which btw, the Laws of Physics and Biochemistry have no Symbolic Logic Functions.
 
Viola, A Tree! The Independent Variable here is YOUR EYELIDS !!  
 
It's OBSERVE a PHENOMENON, not just "Make an Observation"--- of Nouns!

 

It's a bastardization of Science, Plain and Simple.  Crocheting is more Scientific than Historical/Forensics. 

 

 

I'm actually quite shocked you posted this mike.

 

It is easy to say "evo would have predicted this"

 

 

1.  It's also Incoherent because "evolution" is not an entity much less a "Scientific Theory".

 

and the final death blow, as if we needed it (relating to The Scientific Method above)...

 

2.  â€œEvolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only".

Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014


#9 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 65
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 13 February 2016 - 10:10 PM

I haven't seen any ridicule in that thread. As for calling you a liar: that was me. But the real phrase was: until you provide evidence for the statements you make I will call you a liar. No evidence has been provided. The moment you provide evidence, like alink, I will humbly apologise. But until so long I call you a liar.

 

Driewerf, you are either extremely thick, or are a willful time-waster.

 

But for the sake of anybody new reading this topic I'll point out, yet again, that I can't call up posts from back when I used to be on this forum, roughly 2005 to 2010, because they have all been deleted in a past upgrade of the forum software.

 

Just in case you are hard of hearing, here it is again:

 

The posts that you require me to produce, are not available on this board anymore. Got it!?

 

So, don't use that lame accusation again, or you risk being warned as a time-waster.

 

However, as I have been unable to access past threads here, I googled a number of quotes from evos saying essentially what you called me a liar about. And also pulled a quote from someone in the very same thread saying basically the thing that you called me a liar about.

 

If you can't accept that, and if you continue in the same vein, then you'll find yourself dealing with a moderator.

 

All that aside, it's curious that I find you supremely resistant in accepting my challenge that would truly prove me a liar. If I lied claiming that evos believe they can prove the theory of evolution without needing to use the scientific method, then you should be eager to do just that thing. So far, my challenge has been met with a deafening silence.

 

I, and virtually everybody else here, take that as validation of my original statement, and refutation of your accusation that I am a liar.



#10 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,014 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 13 February 2016 - 10:18 PM

A past event is not exempt from scientific investigation; both historical and operational science are, science. 

 

 

Hogwash!  It's an Equivocation Fallacy.

 

Do you even know what the Scientific Method is??

 

Post a For Instance, I triple dog dare ya...?

 

While we can't go into a magical time machine and do a physical experiment in the past, we can observe the effects of the past and make predictions and do tests on what we ought observe given a hypothesis/theory about a past event.

 

 

Baloney.  I have 3 Torch Marks on my Garage Wall....

 

1. What's The Hypothesis....?

 

2. What's the TEST....?

 

3. What's the Prediction...?

 

My "theory": Invisible Fire Breathing Dragons Exist.  Disprove it...?

 

 

Recall that science is not interested in "proof", but supporting evidence. 

 

 

Baloney!

 

Are you saying these aren't "PROVEN"...

 

a. Unless it is hindered "Specifically", in "Nature"....Heat Flows from Hot to Cold (Always!), Energy Concentrated to Dispersed (Always!), High Pressure to Low Pressure (Always!)
b. Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create or destroy matter/energy.
c. Vitamin C deficiency in Humans results in Scurvy.
d. Protein Secondary Structure is the result of Primary Structure and Hydrogen Bonding.
e. Insulin Deficiency in Type 1 Diabetics results in Keto-Acidosis.
f.  INFORMATION is ALWAYS sourced by Intelligent Agency, Without Exception!
g. Life ONLY comes from LIFE
h. ONLY Observation/"Knower of the Path Information" COLLAPSES the Wave Function.
i. The Laws of Physics and Chemistry contain no Symbolic Logic Functions.
j. Wrong Handed Stereoisomers DESTROY DNA/RNA/Protein Secondary Structure.
 
I could go on for MONTHS !!

 

I'm short on time but a quick example of this in regards to human evolution would be the observation that we have 23 pairs of chromosomes while the rest of the apes have 24. Scientists made a hypothesis that if evolution is true then there must have been a chromosomal fusion in our lineage and we will find evidence of this by finding inactive/extra telomeres and centromeres where they shouldn't be in one of our chromosomes. We tested that hypothesis and found such evidence on our chromosome #2.

 

 

Really??  Show The Experiment that VALIDATES this Monstrosity of a Begging The Question AND TEXTBOOK Affirming The Consequent Fallacy...?

 

regards






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users