Proof of evolution (Page 4)

ParallaxMan: The dwarf sees further when on the shoulder of giants. I can see my house from here!

ParallaxMan: Re exocanth:-

Premise 1: On the H-D model of scientific evidence, anything logically entailed by a theory, if verified, constitutes evidence for that theory.

Premise 2: The theory of Creationism has certain entailments that have been verified.

Conclusion: On the H-D model of scientific evidence, there is evidence for the theory of Creationism.

Unfortunately, creationism relies exclusively on the existence of God and Godel’s ontological proof concludes that God either probably does exist or that God probably doesn’t. This effectively excludes God from the argument and we are left with “things were created”.

Considering that millions believe in God (who might or might not exist) this could give credence to the evidence of creationism, but then we must resolve the purport of abiogenesis, which we are reminded daily is impossible. Creationists insist that a probable God performed a miracle (a probable miracle) and since the only evidence of miracles is written in the bible which subsequently the Hd model of scientific evidence would conclude as evidence, then suddenly God bursts into view and back from the field of reeds without ever seeing the keen city,and we are right back where we started.

I would suggest that, before resolving this particular conundrum, we require a common frame of reference (sic) we won’t ever know until we are dead.

I am in no hurry to find out.

axocanth: ParallaxMan (above)

If the "Creator" -- whoever/whatever that is -- does not exist, then it follows that the theory of Creationism cannot possibly be 𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒆. Even assuming this to be the case, it does not follow, however, that there is no 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 for the theory, which is the issue we've been addressing recently.

I asked you earlier in the thread whether or not, in your opinion, there could be evidence for 𝒇𝒂𝒍𝒔𝒆 theories as well as true theories. I don't think you replied.



As I've no doubt you will readily admit, it is sometimes the case that scientific theories once believed to be true come to be regarded as false, indeed it is a fairly routine occurrence. Now, anyone who argues that only 𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒆 theories can be supported by evidence leaves himself in a very awkward position. He would be compelled to concede that all those scientific theories which are false --past or present -- 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒏𝒐𝒕, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒏𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓 𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒆, 𝒔𝒖𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒃𝒚 𝒂𝒏𝒚 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕𝒔𝒐𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓.

This does not sit at all well, to put it mildly, with the view that scientific knowledge claims are always supported by evidence. On this view, only the 𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒆 ones are.



To put this into contemporary focus, there are several mutually incompatible theories (or 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔, if you prefer) of quantum mechanics presently vying for physicists' attention. Each has its supporters. Given that these theories are mutually incompatible, at most 𝒐𝒏𝒆 can be true, and it's entirely possible that 𝒏𝒐𝒏𝒆 are.

The person arguing that only true theories can have evidence to support them would be compelled to concede that the majority of these theories, and quite possibly 𝒂𝒍𝒍 of them, are backed by no evidence whatsoever.

Exactly the same applies to the situation in evolutionary theory. There exists a plurality of mutually inconsistent claims/theories/hypotheses (whatever you want to call them -- it matters not) regarding both the pattern and process of evolution. Thus, they cannot all be true. The person arguing that only true claims can have evidence to support them would be compelled to concede that the majority of these claims, indeed, conceivably 𝒂𝒍𝒍 of them, are backed by no evidence whatsoever.

Is this a position you would wish to defend?



Conclusion: Whether or not a theory is true is an independent question from whether or not it is supported by evidence. Most people, I daresay, feel comfortable with the idea that both false and true theories can have evidence to support them.

ParallaxMan: I agree in the entirety and have said before, a theory might seem factual today but, since most things are open to interpretation, tomorrow it might have no credence at all. Take the WOW message of the 1970s for example, a real live message from an extra terrestrial intelligence, and this was rushed to publication. Some time later, a canny radio-astronomer discovered the message source was in fact a distant neutron star.

Everyone has a pet theory. Humans were once hobbits. In actual fact, the tiny people were a different species with only a tenuous link to homo whomever.

What we need is evidence. Evidence evidence.

Recall the story I told of the gran sasso neutrinos? Poor Einstein must be turning in his urn!

How do you do the bold text and italics? Spill the beans!

BelgianStrider: https://lingojam.com/ItalicTextGenerator
https://lingojam.com/BoldTextGenerator
https://lingojam.com/TinyTextGenerator

BelgianStrider: ᴾˢˢˢˢˢᵗ ᵗʰᵉʳᵉ ʷᵃˢ ⁿᵉᵛᵉʳ ᵃⁿʸ ᵉᵛᶦᵈᵉⁿᶜᵉ ᵃᵇᵒᵘᵗ ᵗʰᵉ "ᵉᵗʰᵉʳᶦᵃˡ ᵐᵉᵈᶦᵘᵐ" ᶠᵒʳ ᵉˡᵉᶜᵗʳᵒᵐᵃᵍⁿᵉᵗᶦᶜ ʷᵃᵛᵉˢ ᵎᵎᵎᵎ ᴵᵗ ʷᵃˢ ʲᵘˢᵗ ᵃ ˡᵒᵍᶦᶜᵃˡ ᵈᵉᵈᵘᶜᵗᶦᵒⁿ ᵃˢ ᵃⁿʸ ʷᵃᵛᵉ ⁿᵉᵉᵈˢ ᵃ ᵐᵉᵈᶦᵘᵐ ᵗᵒ ᵖʳᵒᵖᵃᵍᵃᵗᵉ.
ᶠᵘᵗʰᵉʳ ᵃⁿᵃˡʸˢᶦˢ ᵒᶠ ᵗʰᵉ ᴱᴸᴱᶜᵀᴿᴼᴹᴬᴳᴺᴱᵀᴵᶜ ᵂᴬⱽᴱˢ ᵗʰᵉᵐˢᵉˡᵛᵉˢ ᵍᵃᵛᵉ ᵉᵛᶦᵈᵉⁿᶜᵉ ᵗʰᵃᵗ ᶦᵗ ᵈᵒᵉˢ ᴺᴼᵀ ⁿᵉᵉᵈ ᵃⁿʸ ᵐᵉᵈᶦᵘᵐ ᵗᵒ ᵖʳᵒᵖᵃᵍᵃᵗᵉ

ParallaxMan: Belgian, 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒂𝒏 𝒂𝒃𝒔𝒐𝒍𝒖𝒕𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒓

BelgianStrider: thank you

BelgianStrider: "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory explains "why" or "how": a fact is a simple, basic observation, whereas a law is a statement (often a mathematical equation) about a relationship between facts. For example, Newton’s Law of Gravity is a mathematical equation that can be used to predict the attraction between bodies, but it is not a theory to explain how gravity works.[4] Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."[5]

..."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#:~:text=A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of,have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

Just to remind the "scientific definition" of the word "theory" and has NOTHING to do with the general daily used semantic of the same word "theory" which mostly can be replaced by the word "hypothesis" whithout changing the semantical concept and meaning of the phrase!!!! It is NOT the case with any "scientific theory" just due to its definition !!!!!

BelgianStrider: In science " creationists theory" has NO sense at all !!! It is even a complete logical aberration !!!

Why? Because that word "theory" is used in the daily common semantical way and has, in science, to be replaced by "hypothesis"!
In the non-scientifical common language it can have sense as "theory" is semantically a synonym of "conjecture" - "hypothesis".

ParallaxMan: When in doubt, Newton would say, “hypotheses non fingo”, a phrase I’ve muttered many times when I can’t find my spectacles. .

axocanth: BelgianStrider: "ᴾˢˢˢˢˢᵗ ᵗʰᵉʳᵉ ʷᵃˢ ⁿᵉᵛᵉʳ ᵃⁿʸ ᵉᵛᶦᵈᵉⁿᶜᵉ ᵃᵇᵒᵘᵗ ᵗʰᵉ "ᵉᵗʰᵉʳᶦᵃˡ ᵐᵉᵈᶦᵘᵐ" ᶠᵒʳ ᵉˡᵉᶜᵗʳᵒᵐᵃᵍⁿᵉᵗᶦᶜ ʷᵃᵛᵉˢ ᵎᵎᵎᵎ . . . "



I'd suggest, at the outset, that Mr Strider may be the victim of one of these unfortunately common, distorting and misleading "Whiggish" histories of science that I've written and warned about in other places. However, I'll make the case and leave readers to come to their own conclusions.

Compare, first, two possible histories of the ether saga, which -- following almost everyone else nowadays -- we shall assume does not exist.


Belgian History: The ether does not exist. It did, however, play a major role in scientific theorizing, especially in the 19th century. No one ever took it very seriously, though, as something 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒍. It was regarded, perhaps, as some kind of abstract theoretical construct having no bearing on reality. Serious scientists did not claim to have 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 of the ether, they did not claim to have 𝒌𝒏𝒐𝒘𝒍𝒆𝒅𝒈𝒆 of the ether, they did not believe it really 𝒆𝒙𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒅.


Terra Firma History: The ether does not exist. It did, however, play a major role in scientific theorizing, especially in the 19th century. It was taken very seriously indeed. At least a great many scientists regarded it as something 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒍, something of which they had 𝒌𝒏𝒐𝒘𝒍𝒆𝒅𝒈𝒆, something which -- though not directly observable -- was supported by good 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆.




No prizes for guessing which version of history makes science 𝒍𝒐𝒐𝒌 better. After all, who wants to be caught believing in something that does not exist?



But which version of history corresponds more closely with the actual historical facts? Well, let's see what some of the greatest scientists of the period had to say . . .



"Whatever difficulties we may have in forming a consistent idea of the constitution of the aether, there can be no doubt that the interplanetary and interstellar spaces are not empty, but are occupied by a material substance or body, which is certainly the largest, and probably the most uniform body of which we have any knowledge."

- J. C. Maxwell (quoted in Cushing's "Philosophical Concepts in Physics", p192)



"We know the luminiferous ether better than we know any other kind of matter in some particulars. We know it for its elasticity; we know it in respect to the constancy of the velocity of the propagation of light for different periods"

- Lord Kelvin (quoted in Achinstein "Evidence, Explanation & Realism", p319)



"As J. J. Thomson said as late as 1909, "The ether is not a fantastic creation of the speculative philosopher; it is as essential to us as the air we breathe. . . . The study of this all-pervading substance is perhaps the most fascinating and important duty of the physicists" "

- "The Advancement of Science and its Burdens", Holton, p79





I think it's clear, then, that the ether was taken very seriously indeed. We are being told that some of the finest scientists, including at least Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, and Thomson, regarded the ether not only as something real, but something of which they had knowledge. They 𝒃𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒅 in the ether.


Now, Mr Strider tells us at the top that there never was any evidence for the ether.

If he's right about this -- and I'll leave you decide for yourselves -- then we are compelled to say the following:

"A great many scientists, including some of the very best, believed in, and were claiming knowledge of, something that does not exist 𝒃𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝒏𝒐 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕𝒔𝒐𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓."


And 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕, to my ears at least, sounds an awful lot like the way other contributors to this thread regard those people who believe in God -- "They believe in something that does not exist, and for whose existence there is no evidence whatsoever."


Well, folks, if that conclusion makes you queasy, I'd suggest you take a very close look indeed at Mr Strider's fanciful reconstructions of history.

axocanth: P.S. As for Mr Strider's "kindergarten" definitions of scientific terms, all those content with kindergarten science are encouraged to go ahead and take them at face value.

Anyone wishing to mature beyond kindergarten, perhaps even enter the real world ( ), is advised to regard Mr Strider's definitions with a very skeptical eye indeed.

bonzono: yep, you really did just graduate from your logic 101 class. I'm excited you're persisting with the dramatic fonts though.


For all your hot air about logic, what is painfully obvious, I'm afraid, is that you fail to grasp the concept of logical "entailment".

Heh, super. See, people who do understand this stuff dont really think it's a big deal - it's usually pretty straightforward to the point we dont need to pull it out and wave it around on internet, as if it's something we just learned in our first year formal logic class - but - by all means.

"Now, if the conclusion happens not to comport with your own pre-analytical intuitions or biases (i.e. "Oh, how I dearly wish for there to be no evidence for God" ), what you 𝒄𝒂𝒏 do is challenge the premises."

Yup - not much here - widely missing the mark as you usually do. And as a bonus (for you) what you have achieved is dodge the issue of what constitutes 'evidence' - why? because that's actually the relevant parameter behind the entire issue.

Any goof can point to a tree and stomp and pout - 'but it's evidence!' - followed with 'but i showed you evidence, you just didnt look at it/believe it/understand it'

It's the usual nonsense.

When you have something that can be shown to be intelligently defensible from a being that you - or anyone - have made up. let me know.

The fun thin about showing evidence for something you've made up is that you can pretend everyone's always had the evidence and it was never made up.

Tragically, gods have always been made up.

BelgianStrider: OOOOOOOPS

let's compare this:
"Bonzono: "can you do something better than this act of a 13 year old who's just found out they're accepted into highschool? It's a little more than cringy. Presumably you're actually an adult - how about you behave like one?"


It's unfortunate that what might have turned into an intelligent thread for thinking people has been sabotaged by your own temper tantrums.

Not only has your grasp of elementary logic been shown to be wanting, your capacity to conduct a discussion at a civilized, mature level has been too.




@ ParallaxMan

I will not be continuing the discussion if you permit childish insults and disrespectful behavior of this kind in your thread. I had been hoping for a sensible exchange with intelligent people. Bonzono apparently is not up to the task. A review of the conditions stated in your own OP might be salutary."

with this:
"axocanth: P.S. As for Mr Strider's "kindergarten" definitions of scientific terms, all those content with kindergarten science are encouraged to go ahead and take them at face value.

Anyone wishing to mature beyond kindergarten, perhaps even enter the real world ( ), is advised to regard Mr Strider's definitions with a very skeptical eye indeed."

Any difference in the childish behaviour of axo versus Bonzono ?????????

I don't think so !!!!

So following you, axo, what should ParallaxMan do ???? Be consequential

bonzono: heh Belgian, poor old axo has long been nothing more than a troll on internet.
Watch as he keeps skipping around the point without once addressing it.

But in my defence, we really do have to adopt a more infantile attitude when talking to people like Axo - afterall, he's attempting to justify something not entirely different to the existence of santa.

BelgianStrider: now all axo did is just using the argument full with the fallacy of authority !!!!!

It is not because Maxwell, Kelvin (btw he also affirmed that heavier than air will never fly and some years later the brotherrs Wright SHOWED him being WRONG ) and finally Thomson made claims about the existence "the Aether medium" they could not be wrong about it ???? Yes the were 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐖𝐇𝐘??? 𝐃𝐔𝐄 𝐓𝐎 𝐋𝐀𝐂𝐊 𝐎𝐅 𝐂𝐎𝐑𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐓 𝐊𝐍𝐎𝐖𝐋𝐄𝐃𝐆𝐄


Darwin was in many points quite correct in his theory; though also had many thing totally wrong afterwards !!! 𝐖𝐇𝐘, 𝐇𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐧𝐨 𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐃𝐍𝐀!

Again: there has never been any evidence about the" Aether medium" for electromagnetic waves, it was a just a logical conclusion and INTERPRETATION from the following observation "every type of wave needs a medium"

bonzono: "Again: there has never been any evidence about the" Aether medium" for electromagnetic waves, "

I normally dont wish to pursue a topic irrelevant to the forum - but it's interesting - it turns out EM really is just a perturbation in a pervasive EM field after all, just not one that 'flows' around us with any particular current or velocity-dependent viscosity. The idea was right, the concept was wrong.

Anyhow, back to the topic

ParallaxMan: Re exocanth:

"Whatever difficulties we may have in forming a consistent idea of the constitution of the aether, there can be no doubt that the interplanetary and interstellar spaces are not empty, but are occupied by a material substance or body, which is certainly the largest, and probably the most uniform body of which we have any knowledge."

- J. C. Maxwell (quoted in Cushing's "Philosophical Concepts in Physics", p192)

Clever chap, that Maxwell, but right for the wrong reason.

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Herschel/Cosmic_Microwave_Background_CMB_radiation

You want proof? Re-tune your tv between channels. The gash is the CMB

BelgianStrider: Now let's take that childish argument about the kindegarten

"As for Mr Strider's "kindergarten" definitions of scientific terms, all those content with kindergarten science are encouraged to go ahead and take them at face value."

Let's see:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory is the definition coming from a "kintegarten"

https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-theory is the definition coming from a "kintegarten"

https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html is the definition coming from a "kintegarten"

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structure-scientific-theories/ is the definition coming from a "kintegarten"

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-theory is the definition coming from a "kintegarten"

Please note: the last one is fom a 𝐒𝐈𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐄 𝐃𝐀𝐈𝐋𝐘 𝐃𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐀𝐑𝐘

mr colin should better READ valuable lecture than listening berlinski's pure blatant lies !!!!!

axocanth: A few others I came across (bearing in mind BelgianStrider's assertion that there never was any evidence for the ether) . . .



"Consequently Hertz and his contemporaries were able to construe the production of radio waves, as among other things, 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒇𝒊𝒓𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒆𝒙𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒓𝒐𝒎𝒂𝒈𝒏𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓."

- Alan Chalmers, "Science and Its Fabrication", p64 (italics in original)


Of course, "confirmation", with regards to a scientific theory, is just another way of saying 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆.




Larry Laudan in "Science and Hypothesis" (page 106, note 23) quotes Bryan Robinson (as originally typed):

"This 𝑨𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 being a very general material Cause, without any Objection appearing against it from the Phenomena, no Doubt can be made of its Existence: For by how much the more general any Cause is, by so much stronger is the Reason for allowing its Existence. The 𝑨𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 is a much more general Cause than our Air: And on that Account, the Evidence from the Phenomena, is much stronger in Favour of the Existence of the 𝑨𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓, than it is in Favour of the Existence of the Air."



Laudan again on page 130 . . .

"By invoking this requirement, as we shall see, proponents of the optical ether were able to argue -- as their 18th-century ethereal precursors could not -- that there was some very impressive evidence available for a luminiferous ether, evidence which went well beyond the ability of that hypothesis merely 'to save the phenomena'."




Finally, in Imre Lakatos's "The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes", page 76, note 5, we see this:

"Indeed, Chwolson's excellent physics textbook said in 1902 that the probability of the ether hypothesis borders on certainty."





Wow! The evidence for the ether is stronger than the evidence for the air! The probability of its existence borders on certainty!


Gosh, this sounds an awful lot like the way you guys talk about evolution.

Well, it just goes to show, I suppose, how easy it is to be so utterly sure of something and yet so utterly 𝒘𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒈.






Now, if BelgianStrider is right about there never having been any evidence for the ether, it would appear a great many scientists out there are, or have been, convinced of the reality of something 𝒃𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝒏𝒐 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕𝒔𝒐𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓.

bonzono: "You want proof? Re-tune your tv between channels. The gash is the CMB"
there's any amount of proof of the CMB - it fits theory perfectly. If someone thinks there isnt proof for the CMB, they dont understand what the CMB is.

'ah hav noooo ahdeah wot ya'll tarkin about. but... *hockspit*.. whatevah it is .. ya'll are shoorly wrong *hockspit*"

Redneck reasoning at its best - and curiously common among people who think evolution isn't valid.

In their defense - what they THINK is evolution (and probably in this case, the CMB) really is nonsense... it's just what they THINK is evolution - isn't.. evolution (and probably the same applies to people who think the CMB is bunk too).

axocanth: "Clever chap, that Maxwell, but right for the wrong reason." - ParallaxMan



I couldn't agree more! Mr Maxwell was no idiot. Maxwell may have been very wrong, but he no doubt had good reasons for believing what he did.

And a "good reason for believing" something is what we normally call 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆.


Mr Strider, however, insists Maxwell believed what he did on the basis of 𝒏𝒐 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕𝒔𝒐𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓 . . . which makes him (i.e. Maxwell) look kinda idiotic.


What say you, Mr Parallax?

axocanth: Re definitions:

If you dictionary says "Tiger: a herbivorous animal indigenous to Iceland", your choices are:

1. Accept it

2. Conclude that the definition does not correspond to reality and reject it.


With regard your own definitions, I choose 2. Your definitions are hopelessly inadequate.

BelgianStrider: Yeah they knew radio waves and light are WAVES (they even did not had any clue about the "electromagnetic part" of it. It is also waves.

AS WAVES NEEDS A MEDIUM, IT IS QUITE LOGICAL THOSE WAVES ALSO NEEDS A MEDIUM.... THE EVIDENCE FOR THE MEDIUM WERE THE ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES THEMSELVES !!!!!!
Later on it has been discovered that electromganetism and consequentially electromagnetic waves DO NOT need any mediuim. THEIR EVIDENCE DISAPPEARED

QED there never have been any "evidence" for the "Aether medium"