Evolution is a Religion - VIII

So you have done no research about science. that explains your confusion. come back when you know the difference between a theory and a law.

 

Call me when you create a human in the lab with evolutionary processes

There are math problems with evolution. It should have taken, according to mathematicians, about 40g years for life to have evolved to the point it has on this planet.

There are systemic problems with evolution. consider the bat. Its echolocation system requires that a vocal apparatus, a hearing apparatus and a brain apparatus evolve simultaneously and independently of each other. How did this happen?

Let's take a look at humans. Our brains got bigger at the same time as our pelvises. This means we got smarter at the same time as we were able to give birth to smarter offspring.

Saying the problems are not there does not make them go away.

 

I already explained it to you. A scientific theory is the highest level of confirmation in the scientific community. Evolution is the most tested and confirmed theory in all of science.

 

There are problems with evolution as I have pointed out elsewhere in this thread. Evolution is a theory, not an accomplished fact. I do not deny evolution, I simply recognize that there are problem areas.

 

DNA sequencing is not evolution

 

Ok. You were still wrong about reproducing evolution. We do it every day in the lab.

No, there is no math problems with evolution. Mathematicians are not biologists.

Another poster already refuted this.

Ok?

Which is why I’ve shown you there aren't any problems instead.

 

Not denying evolution, but also not denying there are problems with it.

 

=> A theory explains how something works. It can never become a law. It can be falsified. It is the highest form of "truth" that can possibly be created in natural science, since science has no method of proving something is true.

=> A law is a mathematical relationship. It doesn't explain how something works so it can not become a theory. It can be falsified by any counterexample.

Evolution is not a law, because it describes how something works.

Evolution is so strongly accepted that it has long been a foundation of all modern biology. No proof of falsity exists. If someone managed that they would be famous like Einstein. This does not imply that all answers are know. Science always manages to find stuff that needs serious study to understand. Finding such questions does NOT form a proof of falsity.

 

If you don't know how a thing happened, how can you claim you know the mechanism?

You claim to know how we got from one cell creatures to humanity. I do not dispute the start of the journey nor the end. I say there were obstacles in the way that current evolutionary theory does not address. Blind faith in Evolution the way it stands amounts to religious faith.

 

Evidently you do not understand. Law is the highest level of confirmation in science. As in the law of conservation of mass. Theories have not been proved, but eem to fit the facts as we know them at this time. Gravity would be the most tested and confirmed theory in all of science. So you're twice wrong.

 

Not according to any scientist, scientific paper or textbook in the entire scientific community.

This is how we know you don’t know anything about science. Science doesn’t “prove” anything.

Nope

 

No, that's just not true, as noted by those above.

Science has no method of proving something to be true. So, neither laws nor theories have been proven to be true and BOTH can be proven to be false.

Evolution is how something works. So, there won't ever be a law on that. It will be a theory, because theories describe how something works - not laws.

As I pointed out above, a law can't become a theory and a theory can not become a law.

 

yeah, I am the same with gravity, not denying it, but there are some issues with the theory

 

we can see it from the fossils records, yep, there are gaps, but as we find more fossils, more gets filled in

like I said, its possible aliens tinkered with our dna at some point, we will probably never know the exact growth of the tree of life, as some branches fell off, some regrew, ect....

heck, it's possible Mars used to be habitable, and they had to evacuate and choose earth, many possibilities - all we know is what the fossil records show

 

There are a good number of mechanisms of evolution that are well known.

They range from knowing mechanisms for evolution at the dna and cellular level to seeing what happens in nature as species divide and specialize in different directions due to food, topography, etc. One doesn't even have to resort to the massive amount of fossil evidence, which is explainable by no other theory.

 

I think that depends on your definition of evolution. The only issue I am aware of is that the ignorati demand an example of one species changing into another.

 

I notice that we once again have someone Who is religious insisting that all other people do not know what they are talking about when they say something is not a religion.

It seems to matter so greatly to these soul starved individuals that they just label everything a religion to make themselves feel included.

Doesn't matter how may times you explain it or tell them that they are wrong, they keep coming back. The very definition of a troll.

 

Religion has an advantage in argument as one can say pretty much anything.

"I believe the unseen hand of God supplies us with gravity, moving each and every thing down to save us from floating away, stopping the sun when the war must go on."

Thank you Jesus! What's the proof that isn't true?

Once evolution becomes a religion, they can get back in the game!

 

No, you didn't.

There is no such thing as a "scientific" theory. There is just 'theory'. A theory is an explanatory argument. That's all a theory is. A theory can become a theory of science if it passes internal logic testing, and passes (and continues to pass) external testing against its null hypothesis (ie, the question "how can I falsify this theory?").

Science is not a community. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

Evolution is not falsifiable. It is not science; it is a religion. There is no accessible way to test the null hypothesis of Evolution.

 

Ignoring my disagreement about Evolution being "science", you're a bit off about theory and law as well.

A theory is simply an explanatory argument. A law is simply the formalization of a theory (usually by way of mathematics).

 

That's because Evolution is a religion. It will always be a religion. It is not falsifiable. We cannot go back in time to see what actually occurred all those years ago. It is accepted or rejected on a faith basis, as is any other religion.

Religions do not require gods, spirits, rituals, or any of the sort. All they require is some sort of initial circular argument (ie, an "argument of faith") that has other arguments stemming from it.

 

A theory is simply an explanatory argument. That's all a theory is, whether we are speaking inside or outside the "realm of science".

A law is simply the formalization of a theory, usually by way of mathematics. Formalizing a theory in this manner allows for the power of prediction, which is absent from science, but present in mathematics.

 

Scientists are not science.

Papers are not science.

Textbooks are not science.

Communities are not science.

Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one who knows nothing about science.

Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories. That's all science is. It truly is THAT simple.

As they say, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

This is correct. Science does not have the power of proof. It is not a closed functional system (it is an open one).

 

This is correct. A law can't exist without the prior existence of a theory.

This is incorrect. The very definition of a law is a formalized theory (which is usually by way of mathematics). If there is no theory, then there is nothing to formalize.

 

I think you've put your finger on it. They devalue science to their own standard of nonsense.