I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It's too bad. He was close. This is correct:

if a theory CANNOT be falsified... it is NOT science.

This, however, is unrefined hooey:

A REAL scientific theory must be able to be proven false...

Falsification in science is not a matter of proof. Science, being inductive (which is has to be, because we don't know all the rules of the universe) means that theories cannot be proven or disproven. All we can do is gather enough evidence that it becomes perverse to deny what the evidence says. It can either confirm or it can falsify a hypothesis. If confirmed, the hypothesis becomes a theory. If falsified, it is one more thing we know that isn't part of the way the universe works.

You still don't get it, but I'm not surprised.

I think you got it, because you're not arguing for the part I showed you was wrong.

A theory that cannot be falsified is NOT a scientific theory.

That's what I just told you. Good. And if you now realize that scientific theories are never proven false or true, you've got it. As you seem to now realize, proof isn't part of it. Logical certainty is only possible when we know all the rules and apply them to a particular circumstance. In science, we observe the particular circumstances, and infer the rules. So no proof there.

Verstehen Sie mich?

 

[The Barbarian]

Fill us in. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge, they say.

Should we regard Descartes’ account of perfect knowledge as a version of the justified true belief analysis of knowledge tracing back to Plato? The above texts are among Descartes’ clearest statements concerning perfect knowledge. Yet they raise questions about the extent to which his account is continuous with other analyses of knowledge. Prima facie, his characterizations imply a justified belief analysis – or using language closer to his own (and where justification is construed in terms of unshakability), an unshakable conviction analysis. There’s no stated requirement that the would-be knower’s conviction is to be true, as opposed to being unshakably certain. Is truth, therefore, not a requirement of perfect knowledge?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/

So, it appears Descartes (who more or less pioneered epistemology) is saying that a conclusion reached by logic would produce certainty.

But this is not a very satisfying position, given that we can never be sure that we are entirely logical, which suggests that proof is impossible for any being that is not omniscient.

But if we know all the rules, then we are possibly omniscient with regard to whatever it under consideration. Checkers, for example, has been solved. If neither player makes an error, the game will always end in a draw. This has been mathematically determined and proven. The computer using this knowledge cannot be beat at checkers. The best you can hope for is a draw.

So that's proven. Chess remains unsolved.

Science is not like checkers. We don't even know all the rules, much less all of their implications for reality. So we don't prove or disprove scientific hypotheses.

 

[Right Divider]

That's what I just told you. Good. And if you now realize that scientific theories are never proven false or true, you've got it. As you seem to now realize, proof isn't part of it. Logical certainty is only possible when we know all the rules and apply them to a particular circumstance. In science, we observe the particular circumstances, and infer the rules. So no proof there.

A theory that CANNOT BE FALSIFIED is scientific theory.

I am NOT talking about a theory that has not BEEN falsified... I'm talking about one, like the "theory of evolution", that provides NO WAY to be falsified.

 

[The Barbarian]

How does DNA get manipulated?

Occasionally, a gene gets copied with an error. If this happens in an egg or sperm cell, then it's passed on as a change in genome in the offspring.

Is it by environment?

That can cause errors. Ionizing radiation, teratogens, and other things can increase mutation rates. But there will always be mutations. We all have dozens of them, that were not present in either parent.

What scientific evidence do we have that DNA simply was manipulated over time past?

Other than human tinkering, none that I know of. Michael Behe, a biochemist, thinks that naturalistic evolution is what happens most of the time,but that God has to step in and mess with it from time to time, to make it work as He intends.

His fellow IDer, Michael Denton, things that whatever teleological entity was involved, "pre-loaded" the universe to produce everything that it has.

I think that Denton is closer to the truth than Behe, in that respect.

 

[Right Divider]

Occasionally, a gene gets copied with an error.

So you are still promoting the failed idea that ERRORS are improvements?

So God improves things by making errors?

That is just about the exact definition of foolishness.

 

[The Barbarian]

A theory that CANNOT BE FALSIFIED is scientific theory.

No, that's wrong. All scientific theories can, in principle, be falsified.

The concept was introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper. He saw falsifiability as the logical part and the cornerstone of his scientific epistemology, which sets the limits of scientific inquiry. He proposed that statements and theories that are not falsifiable are unscientific. Declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientific would then be pseudoscience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

I am NOT talking about a theory that has not BEEN falsified... I'm talking about one, like the "theory of evolution", that provides NO WAY to be falsified.

I just showed you one way you could do it. Show that any or all of Darwin's four points in his theory, are wrong. That would do it. You could also falsify bits of it, like common descent. Haldane's Cambrian rabbit, for example.

 

[Right Divider]

No, that's wrong. All scientific theories can, in principle, be falsified.

:duh:

Exactly... that is why the "theory of evolution" is NOT a scientific theory.

 

[Right Divider]

I just showed you one way you could do it. Show that any or all of Darwin's four points in his theory, are wrong. That would do it. You could also falsify bits of it, like common descent. Haldane's Cambrian rabbit, for example.

That's HILARIOUS given that Darwin's theory was long ago abandoned.

That's why we have NEO-Darwinism.... (many varieties all trying to "patch" the various failures of the "theory").

 

[Arthur Brain]

See kgov.com/time.

No thanks. I have zero interest in what kgov/Bob Enyart has to say on the matter. I appreciate that you respect him but I'm not obliged to in turn and I've read enough on his site over the years and recently enough at that for that opinion to remain intact.

The Bible does not teach that God is outside of time.

That comes from pagan teachings which were incorporated into the church by Augustine.

Again, see kgov.com/time.

See above. I'd sooner you brought your own opinions to the table and if you're going to use such sites as "kgov" then bring your own reasoning as to why you think such should be taken seriously and explain in your own independent words as to why.

You mean "your" understanding?

Because the Biblical understanding is that God has a past, exists in the present, and hopes for the future.

Is God eternal? Was there a "starting" point for the existence of God? In human understanding of time there's a start and an end so trying to tie that in with an omnipotent deity isn't really going to work is it? Also, how does limiting God's knowledge of future events do anything but restrict His power to a limited human understanding of time?

God is not outside of time.

How is an omnipotent Deity subject to any temporal laws as we understand them?

It meant the time from sun-up to sun-up.

Last I checked, that was about 24 hours.

Well that wasn't on the first day then was it?

As I said, context ALWAYS determines the meaning of the word yom. Some places it's used it means other than "24 hours." And in Genesis 1, and Exodus 20, it means 24 hours.

Why? Explain why it has to mean a literal 24 hours on those occasions.

I have never claimed the Bible is a science text-book, if that's what you're asking.

Good, because it never was nor could be at the time. Nobody would understand what we now know exists through methodology that would have been alien to ancient tribes.

The history provided in the Bible contains prophecy of what is to come.

So, God does know the future then? The "future" at least as we can understand the term?

This is why I usually ask when discussing things like this if the person I'm talking with has ever read the Bible cover to cover without stopping at least once, if not multiple times cover to cover.

I strongly suggest you read "The Plot" by Bob Enyart (if you haven't already).

What does it matter if I've read anything by Bob Enyart or not? As it happens I've read several articles from the guy over the years and not been the least bit impressed, just the same as I haven't been impressed by claims of people reading the Bible "cover to cover". You can read a book multiple times and still miss the point of a story whereas another person can read the same thing and get the gist in a single sitting. Claims like this mean nothing in themselves.

But if not, the Bible can be summed up into four words:

Creation
Fall
Reconciliation
Reward

It tells the story of God, His people, and how He reconciled the world to Himself, a plot twist, and a conclusion.

Well, you seem to sum it up in four words although that's hardly evidence of anything aside from your own personal belief. If God reconciles the world unto Himself then everyone are His People.

I have considered it. And I've been convinced that the problem is evolution, not what the Bible says.

Convinced by who? And why? What's the actual problem with not just evolution but an old earth?

I'm open to being shown to be wrong, but so far, I have yet to be convinced.

What exactly would it take for you to be open to the prospect of science having these things in hand? Science isn't any sort of threat to faith unless people make it so by their own making, or do you consider that unreasonable?

 

[7djengo7]

I'd prefer you to acquaint yourself with what the term "theory" pertains to where it comes to science and having understood that engage a bit more rationally.

What either you're too dull to understand, or too prideful to admit, is that when you say "theory", or "scientific theory", you are doing nothing more than meaninglessly parroting a word or phrase that you have no hope of explaining. If you imagine you actually mean something by the word "theory", and by the phrase "scientific theory", then by all means start trying to teach us, Professor. The truth is, though, you mean nothing by such things: they are merely slogans with you, that you are conditioned to chanting. It's all an emotion-driven language game that you play. A parrot--a literal bird--conditioned to make the noise, "scientific theory", through its beak, stands no worse a chance at speaking coherently about its use of the phrase than you do. The Barbarian has long since had me on "ignore", because he is unable to coherently answer even the simplest questions regarding the jargon he is proud to litter up his posts with, and that angers him.

Why do you consider yourself to be "engaging rationally" by meaninglessly parroting the phrase, "scientific theory"?

Why can't YOU (as you say) "acquaint" me with what (if anything) YOU imagine YOU mean by the word, "theory", and the phrase, "scientific theory"? That's right: Because, again, you do not mean anything by them.

Otherwise, I'm not seeing there being much point in continuing to be quite frank.

I guarantee you that you will, indeed, continue to gabble as a parrot whenever you say the phrase, "scientific theory", because, as a Darwin cheerleader, that is what you are conditioned to do. I grant you, though, that there is no point in you doing so.

If evolution causes you a severe hangup then just disregard it and carry on believing as you will.

The word, 'evolution'? I've no hangup with it. See, I can type the word, 'evolution', just as easily as you can, Professor. Your hangup with the word, 'evolution', is that you mean nothing by it, but you're too ignorant, or dishonest, to be able to admit that you mean nothing by it. You're too proud of yourself to be able to say, "Well, you're right: I really am just senselessly making noise when I say things like 'evolution', 'evolve', 'science', 'scientific theory', 'the theory of evolution'." If you imagine you actually mean something by any one, or more of these words/phrases, why, by all means, feel free to try to say exactly what you imagine you mean.

For others there's no problem with it and still having faith.

For you, and many others, your problem with the word 'evolution' is that you do not mean anything by it, which is why, when you utter a phrase like "theory of evolution", you're not talking about a theory. Well, that, in itself, is not the whole of your problem with the word 'evolution': the worst of it is that, while you say such things meaninglessly, you're either too ignorant, and deluded into thinking you actually do mean something by them, or you're too prideful and dishonest a poser to admit that you mean nothing by them.

 

[The Barbarian]

So you are still promoting the failed idea that ERRORS are improvements?

Well, let's test your assumption.
A few hundred years ago, a man in Italy was born with an error in his genes. It changed the structure of an Apolipoprotein:

Apolipoprotein A-1 Milano (also ETC-216, now MDCO-216) is a naturally occurring mutated variant of the apolipoprotein A1 protein found in human HDL, the lipoprotein particle that carries cholesterol from tissues to the liver and is associated with protection against cardiovascular disease. ApoA1 Milano was first identified by Dr. Cesare Sirtori in Milan, who also demonstrated that its presence significantly reduced cardiovascular disease, even though it caused a reduction in HDL levels and an increase in triglyceride levels.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ApoA-1_Milano

So this error was a fortuitous one, which protects the people with it, from cardiovascular disease. I'd say that was an improvement. Wouldn't you? BTW, a little genetic sleuthing has revealed the individual in which the error occurred.

The mutation was traced to one man, Giovanni Pomarelli,[3] who was born in the village in 1780 and passed it on to his offspring.
ibid

So God improves things by making errors?

See above. Turns out, God is a lot smarter than some people imagine. Of course, there are those who don't think God is capable of using random variation to improve fitness. That is just about the exact definition of foolishness.

 

[Cntrysner]

But this is not a very satisfying position, given that we can never be sure that we are entirely logical, which suggests that proof is impossible for any being that is not omniscient.

Are you saying that knowledge can not be accessible by logical analysis? If I by faith choose the logic of an omniscient being does that disprove my knowledge that I received displayed by His omniscience.

Proof is possible and undeniable for beings that are not omniscient through time tested omniscience of another from the being of time.

 

[Right Divider]

Well, let's test your assumption.
A few hundred years ago, a man in Italy was born with an error in his genes. It changed the structure of an Apolipoprotein:

Apolipoprotein A-1 Milano (also ETC-216, now MDCO-216) is a naturally occurring mutated variant of the apolipoprotein A1 protein found in human HDL, the lipoprotein particle that carries cholesterol from tissues to the liver and is associated with protection against cardiovascular disease. ApoA1 Milano was first identified by Dr. Cesare Sirtori in Milan, who also demonstrated that its presence significantly reduced cardiovascular disease, even though it caused a reduction in HDL levels and an increase in triglyceride levels.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ApoA-1_Milano

So this error was a fortuitous one, which protects the people with it, from cardiovascular disease. I'd say that was an improvement. Wouldn't you? BTW, a little genetic sleuthing has revealed the individual in which the error occurred.

The mutation was traced to one man, Giovanni Pomarelli,[3] who was born in the village in 1780 and passed it on to his offspring.
ibid

See above. Turns out, God is a lot smarter than some people imagine. Of course, there are those who don't think God is capable of using random variation to improve fitness. That is just about the exact definition of foolishness.

And to someone as simple as you.... this means that molecules can turn into a molecular biologist.... funny stuff.

One tiny error that disrupts the existing design and that in some very minor way is slightly advantageous in a specific instance is your idea of confirming molecules to man?

And, in the process, you ignore the VASTLY more numerous deleterious mutations that stop the process in its tracks.

Your knowledge of science is sorely lacking.

 

[Arthur Brain]

What either you're too dull to understand, or too prideful to admit, is that when you say "theory", or "scientific theory", you are doing nothing more than meaninglessly parroting a word or phrase that you have no hope of explaining. If you imagine you actually mean something by the word "theory", and by the phrase "scientific theory", then by all means start trying to teach us, Professor. The truth is, though, you mean nothing by such things: they are merely slogans with you, that you are conditioned to chanting. It's all an emotion-driven language game that you play. A parrot--a literal bird--conditioned to make the noise, "scientific theory", through its beak, stands no worse a chance at speaking coherently about its use of the phrase than you do. The Barbarian has long since had me on "ignore", because he is unable to coherently answer even the simplest questions regarding the jargon he is proud to litter up his posts with, and that angers him.

You should have had a comma after the word "what" at the start of this post. I'm reckoning that pointing out this grammatical error of yours is going to irk you a bit and to be fair, it's pedantic on my part but where it comes to science and an understanding of the appropriate terminology it's paramount to the subject. Be my guest in correcting syntax or some such on my part as I make mistakes all the time.

Why do you consider yourself to be "engaging rationally" by meaninglessly parroting the phrase, "scientific theory"?

I don't, so I don't need to. I've merely pointed out what a theory is where it comes to science and the understanding of the word in that context.

Why can't YOU (as you say) "acquaint" me with what (if anything) YOU imagine YOU mean by the word, "theory", and the phrase, "scientific theory"? That's right: Because, again, you do not mean anything by them.

See above. Why do you feel the need to type out words in Caps when there's no need or any point or emphasis?

I guarantee you that you will, indeed, continue to gabble as a parrot whenever you say the phrase, "scientific theory", because, as a Darwin cheerleader, that is what you are conditioned to do. I grant you, though, that there is no point in you doing so.

It seems to me as it's you who has a penchant for parroting pointless phrases that don't actually mean anything, this whole "Darwin Cheerleader" for one...

The word, 'evolution'? I've no hangup with it. See, I can type the word, 'evolution', just as easily as you can, Professor. Your hangup with the word, 'evolution', is that you mean nothing by it, but you're too ignorant, or dishonest, to be able to admit that you mean nothing by it. You're too proud of yourself to be able to say, "Well, you're right: I really am just senselessly making noise when I say things like 'evolution', 'evolve', 'science', 'scientific theory', 'the theory of evolution'." If you imagine you actually mean something by any one, or more of these words/phrases, why, by all means, feel free to try to say exactly what you imagine you mean.

Hmm, thanks for the word salad, any chance of some dressing with it next time?

For you, and many others, your problem with the word 'evolution' is that you do not mean anything by it, which is why, when you utter a phrase like "theory of evolution", you're not talking about a theory. Well, that, in itself, is not the whole of your problem with the word 'evolution': the worst of it is that, while you say such things meaninglessly, you're either too ignorant, and deluded into thinking you actually do mean something by them, or you're too prideful and dishonest a poser to admit that you mean nothing by them.

Well, no, you've had the theory explained numerous times on this thread as it is and from someone who professes her own Christian faith along with being a biology professor and why the two aren't mutually exclusive. If there's any pride going on then you really should start looking in your own corner as to why you have such a problem with it.

 

[Cntrysner]

Occasionally, a gene gets copied with an error. If this happens in an egg or sperm cell, then it's passed on as a change in genome in the offspring.

Think about what you said...."a gene gets copied with an error".

That alone disproves your theory unless you can offer how DNA gets copied in error. Amoeba becomes a monkey and monkey becomes man. It's sick for sure. I wonder how with all that sickness we even exist as a higher form based on evolution. Sickness (error)is a precursor to extinction in any environment.

 

[Stripe]

A theory in science becomes a theory because of the amount of tested and supportive evidence that corroborates hypotheses. It isn't just an unsupported notion or idea at that point. Doesn't mean to say it can't be modified or in some cases even discarded.

Typical Darwinist: Asserts his theory as a fact; presumes to lecture on what a theory is when called on his most egregious of mistakes.

Supposing new evidence came to light whereby the theory explaining gravity needed to be modified?

Is reading your second language? Newton's law of gravitational attraction is not a theory. We don't work to overturn laws.

We do work to overturn theories.

We are right to question evolution, as it is just a theory. It's not a law. We don't overturn those.

Please read 70 times and don't argue. :up:

It's not "my idea".

Then butt out of the conversation. :up:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Typical Darwinist: Asserts his theory as a fact; presumes to lecture on what a theory is when called on his most egregious of mistakes.

I've never asserted any "theory of mine" as "fact" and have merely pointed out what a theory is where it comes to science and not the generalised usage of the term, just as plenty others have done previous. If that bothers you then it certainly isn't my fault.

Is reading your second language? Newton's law of gravitational attraction is not a theory. We don't work to overturn laws.

We do work to overturn theories.

We are right to question evolution, as it is just a theory. It's not a law. We don't overturn those.

Please read 70 times and don't argue. :up:

No, it isn't. By all means, do get around to overturning the theory of evolution if you can. Science itself would benefit.

Then butt out of the conversation. :up:

Or you could simply stick to the discussion and not personalize it?

 

[Stripe]

IBTW, evolutionary theory is quite easy (in principle) to falsify. The simplest means is to show that one or more of Darwin's four points is not true. The problem there is that all of them have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence. This is why most creationists organizations admit the evolution of new species and even higher taxa.

As you've been told, Darwin's four points are irrelevant nonsense and creationist organizations explicitly deny evolution.

You want everything to be Darwinism, so you pretend that what we are arguing against is concepts like "change."

Nope. Evolution is just a theory. When you're willing to concede that it is just a theory, you are allowed a seat at the table of scientific discourse. Until then, you're just a troll. :troll'

 

[Right Divider]

No, it isn't. By all means, do get around to overturning the theory of evolution if you can. Science itself would benefit.

A theory that cannot be falsified is not a scientific theory.

Therefore it's just a vague idea.

 

[Arthur Brain]

A theory that cannot be falsified is not a scientific theory.

Therefore it's just a vague idea.

No, and you've had the explanation in detail already so hey. Look, just believe that the earth is young if you want to, what difference does it really make? Be happy with that belief.