Is evolution a fact?

[SpecialFrog]

It's time to agree on certain facts:

Evolution claims to be/follow science
Creation claims to be/follow science.

Remember I am not asking you to concede that the other side is science but merely that both sides claim science.

Is this not true?

I agree that there are creationists who espouse something called "scientific creationism". I would not agree that "creationism" in general claims to follow science.

We both argue our side of the matter, based on our presupposition our viewpoint is scientifically accurate.

Incorrect. I don't presuppose my viewpoint is scientifically accurate. I adjust my viewpoint based on scientific evidence. You are following presuppositions because you have already decided what must be true. This is one of the things that makes "scientific creationism" unscientific. The attempt to portray both "sides" as having equivalent presuppositions is a standard -- and dishonest -- creationist tactic.

For example...Using rates that support our theory, and trashing rates that do not.

You have no theory, in the scientific sense. If by "rates" you are referring to rates of radiometric decay, I am not aware of you having made any claim in this area other than that the established methods of radiometric dating are based on "assumptions" and therefore wrong. I have shown that your claims about assumptions are themselves wrong.

You argue that evolution cannot change because it happened

I don't know what this means. The past (most likely) cannot change, though our knowledge of it can. The theory of evolution can change. Darwin's original framing was replaced by a version that incorporated genetics. The current version will likely change at some point to accommodate new knowledge. It is likely to be a change along the lines of Newtonian to relativistic physics but it is possible that our model is entirely wrong. I accept that possibility.

But we both agree certain points of the theory can always be modified and not debunk our position. And by using our presuppositions we see the alleged errors on the other side.

I disagree that I have any relevant presuppositions. Can you point out any? Also, I question your claim that you see any errors in the theory of evolution.

But my argument should not be with the flow of logic after the evolutionary presuppositions. It should be with the presuppositions. Therein lies the error.

Like I believe your argument should not be with the flow of logic after the creationist presuppositions, but with the presuppositions. For therein will lie the error.

We both can argue how we like. You are being both illogical and making unsupported presuppositions. I do not believe I am but if you can point out either of these things feel free.

If your position is logically inconsistent even starting from your own presuppositions then it is clearly wrong.

Because we both claim science, we both claim to be logical. Accusing the other side of pseudoscience and pseudo logic.

Except that "science" and "logic" mean things. You claim be support science but your own statements show that you don't understand what the term means or how science works. Etymology is not the same as meaning.

You can say, "I am doing science" and have your own special meaning for the word "science" that makes this a true statement. However, in doing so you are doing this:

If you are not going to use the term "science" in the way scientists use it you should use a different word.

Therefore arguing with the flow of logic after the presuppositions will never change the theory, thereby granting me and you continual wiggle room to claim well the theory changed, yes we accept new evidence, but evolution itself remains changeless.

I have never claimed that evolution remains changeless. As I have explained at least twice, what I have said is that the revised "tree of life" does not represent a change to the theory of evolution.

I would claim same thing if parts of creation theory changed it does not imply creation is wrong merely our method of explaining certain phenomenon.

Just to be clear, are you trying to pave the way for a concession that mutation and selection might be able increase genetic information while still being able to maintain that evolution is false?

Therefore our argument must be with the presuppositions of evolution and creation. Not with the logic flow after the presuppositions.

Therefore bring evolutionary presuppositions, I can bring creation presuppositions.

I firmly believe to claim, and I am not saying you will do this, but to claim no presuppositions will be a concession.

Like many things you believe, this is wrong.

In a way, science presupposes that the world is "orderly and comprehensible" but even this is based on inductive reasoning. It could still be overturned by evidence that the world fails to be at least one of those things.

As for your presuppositions, I know what some of them are. And if the YEC thread is any indication you seem entirely unwilling to examine them.

And I have no idea what Nicholas Cage movie you mean.

Edit: Fixed a typo.

 

[Dustnite]

You know in the movie with Nicholas cage and he could see the future, but with a certain women he could see much more?

And at the end of the movie he's like I'm wrong... Then it pans out and he's back in the cabin.

I'm having one of those moments..

For a minute, I thought he was going to admit he's been intentionally obtuse this whole time, nope double downed..

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Well if you claim that evolution has no presuppositions then this argument is over.

SpecialFrog already answered this when he said that science presupposes that the world is "orderly and comprehensible".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

Well if you claim that evolution has no presuppositions then this argument is over.

As Dragan Glas kindly noted:

In a way, science presupposes that the world is "orderly and comprehensible" but even this is based on inductive reasoning. It could still be overturned by evidence that the world fails to be at least one of those things.

I'm happy to examine that presupposition. Are you interested in examining yours?

 

[Dustnite]

Well if you claim that evolution has no presuppositions then this argument is over.

SOLIPISM ALERT! ALERT, ALERT!

Incoming solipism argument, watch out!

 

[SpecialFrog]

Well if you claim that evolution has no presuppositions then this argument is over.

SOLIPISM ALERT! ALERT, ALERT!

Incoming solipism argument, watch out!

We might all be in the Matrix, but it is a Matrix that gives all appearances of being orderly and comprehensible and not one that allows Neo to exist.

 

[SpecialFrog]

I'm not talking about the presuppositions of science. I agree with the presuppositions of science. I'm looking for the presuppositions of evolution.

They are the same thing.

If you think I am making other presuppositions please point them out. I'm pretty sure I can identify a lot of yours.

ISure we can examine mine... On the creation thread. Well examine the evolution ones on this thread.

When you say"examine", are you willing to consider the possibility that some of your presuppositions might be unsound or even wrong?

 

[JRChadwick]

There are no presuppositions of evolution. Period! It is the conclusion reached after weighing the evidence.

 

[SpecialFrog]

They are not the same thing. The presuppositions of science do not equal the presuppositions of evolution. I'm sorry.

Don't be sorry, explain what other presuppositions evolution requires.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Another deluded evolutionist.. To believe there are no presuppositions in evolution.

Name them.

I actually would argue against the presuppositions listed above by my esteemed colleagues and say that they aren't presuppositions, but are evidentially supported postulates.

There are three assumptions necessary for the conduct of science, and I'm betting you can't name any of them, not least because you don't know the first thing about science, or about epistemology generally.

 

[DutchLiam84]

Another deluded evolutionist.. To believe there are no presuppositions in evolution.

In other words: "Look at me , I know so much more about science than actual scientists in all fields combined! Also, if you need a cavity filled, don't go to a dentist, I've done a 5 minute study on the internet. Need bypass surgery? I'm your guy! And, I know how the law works, because I've read 5 pages on law on the internet. Yep, I'm awesome like that. If anyone tells me I'm wrong, they're wrong because I'm awesome and I know everything there is to know better then anyone else. I'm pretty much an expert on anything after 5 minutes. Fuck, it's good to be me!"

 

[JRChadwick]

Another deluded evolutionist.. To believe there are no presuppositions in evolution.

Yes, please enlighten me. What presuppositions have we made?

And there is no such word as "evolutionist!"

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Another deluded evolutionist.. To believe there are no presuppositions in evolution.

In other words: "Look at me , I know so much more about science than actual scientists in all fields combined! Also, if you need a cavity filled, don't go to a dentist, I've done a 5 minute study on the internet. Need bypass surgery? I'm your guy! And, I know how the law works, because I've read 5 pages on law on the internet. Yep, I'm awesome like that. If anyone tells me I'm wrong, they're wrong because I'm awesome and I know everything there is to know better then anyone else. I'm pretty much an expert on anything after 5 minutes. Fuck, it's good to be me!"

:lol:

The best part about this is it is coming from someone that did not know about chromosome 2 fusion, telomeres, and horizontal gene transfer until about two weeks ago. The only thing larger than a creationist’s hubris is its ignorance.

And there is no such word as "evolutionist!"

I truly believe this is a worthless point to argue and Dick Dawkins has already fucked it up for all of us anyways. The high pope of Atheism/Evolution uses the term all the time.

 

[Rando]

Okay Bernie, one way we know that our assumptions are accurate is through practical application. We can test the assumption that isotope will break down at a constant rate by developing nuclear energy and radioactive chemotherapy (something I work with). Both nuclear energy and chemotherapy depend on radioactive isotopes decaying at a constant rate. If these were merely "assumptions" both of these technologies would be impossible. If isotopes broke down at different rates at random intervals nuclear reactors would be melting down all over the world. That's how we test the "assumption" that isotopes break down at a constant rate, and are not being messed with by your god, or were different in the past.

A practical application of the "assumption" that life evolves is by using vaccines against a possible genetic change to a bacteria or virus. Did you get your Flu shot Bernie? Congratulations, you just tested the "assumption" that allelic changes will be caused through random mutations and natural selection, because that "flu shot" you get pumped into your arm, depends on the Flu Virus changing in a specific way.

Come on guys, we need to tell Bernie about all the various technologies and inventions that depend on our "assumptions" about our planet being accurate. Oil companies depend on technology that proves the Earth is old. GPS could only be possible if the speed of light were constant. I can't be the only one who can think of these things, let's give him a nice long list of ways our "assumptions" are tested.

 

[tuxbox]

Well, a troll to me is one that just says something to get a rise out of anyone that will listen to them. The fact that Bernhard.visscher will flagrantly contradict himself within a few posts (or after having it pointed out to him) tells me that he does not believe a word he is saying. Anyone that actually cares about their position (or their status) would take care to not act so sloppy. However, contradicting oneself for the sake of arguing with strangers seems to be classic troll behavior to me.

Yeah, he is most defiantly a troll. I'm sorry I doubted it you.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Okay Bernie, one way we know that our assumptions are accurate is through practical application. We can test the assumption that isotope will break down at a constant rate by developing nuclear energy and radioactive chemotherapy (something I work with). Both nuclear energy and chemotherapy depend on radioactive isotopes decaying at a constant rate. If these were merely "assumptions" both of these technologies would be impossible. If isotopes broke down at different rates at random intervals nuclear reactors would be melting down all over the world. That's how we test the "assumption" that isotopes break down at a constant rate, and are not being messed with by your god, or were different in the past.

A practical application of the "assumption" that life evolves is by using vaccines against a possible genetic change to a bacteria or virus. Did you get your Flu shot Bernie? Congratulations, you just tested the "assumption" that allelic changes will be caused through random mutations and natural selection, because that "flu shot" you get pumped into your arm, depends on the Flu Virus changing in a specific way.

Come on guys, we need to tell Bernie about all the various technologies and inventions that depend on our "assumptions" about our planet being accurate. Oil companies depend on technology that proves the Earth is old. GPS could only be possible if the speed of light were constant. I can't be the only one who can think of these things, let's give him a nice long list of ways our "assumptions" are tested.

Well, I already pointed out that our spacecrafts are powered by the decay of heavy elements. There is also how scientists are able to find natural resources, not just the technology they use. I would bet that Bernhard.vissher has never thought about why there is so much oil under Saudi Arabia, so much coal in North America and parts of Europe, and so many diamonds in Africa (or how 19th and 20th century prospectors found them). Geology (earth history) can tell him why. Another easy one is astronomy alone. How would we we able to see things that are billions of light years away if the earth (and universe) is only 6,000 years old. Anytime someone uses a pair of binoculars to view Andromeda, they are proving the universe is far older than 6,000 years.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Indeed. The combination of SN1987A and Berkeley's Assassin should be sufficient to put paid to any assertion that the universe is less than 10,000 years old.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Ah, the old argumentum ad googleityourselfum. Let us know how that works out for you.

You assert, you support.

Now, about the presuppositions. What were they again? You seem to know an awful lot about them, so it shouldn't be difficult. I don't understand why you're vacillating, except, of course, that you haven't a fucking clue of what you're banging on about, as usual.

 

[Collecemall]

Then it shouldn't be all that difficult to produce one rather than as you say "kicking the can".

 

[SpecialFrog]

Bernhard, what do you think the word "presupposition" means?