Greek revival

[darkgael]

IG: ” have always heard that any hypothesis to become "settles', it must be proven, and if it has not been demonstrated, it is still nothing more than a hypothesis”

  ”OK..enough preaching..guess we will just have to agree to disagree.”
Fair enough.

Happy Father's Day

[ironglow]

IG: ” have always heard that any hypothesis to become "settles', it must be proven, and if it has not been demonstrated, it is still nothing more than a hypothesis.”

  Oxford dictionary;

     " ​ an idea or explanation of something that is based on a few known facts but that has not yet been proved to be true or correct      ...SYNONYM theory "

[darkgael]

”it must be proven”
Yes.
If you look...You will find that there has been an overwhelming amount of repeatedly confirmed evidence accumulated over the last century by tens of thousands of professional biologists, paleontologists , geneticists and allied sciences all over the world. That will confirm, as it has for practically everyone else in the world, the reality of evolution of life on earth. It will explain the mechanisms and show you, in as much detail as you wish, all the evidence that has led to the construction of one of the most solid explanatory theories on Earth.
(again quoted from a writer who said it better than I.))

[ironglow]

Sorry; it must be proven empirically and withot question, before it can be accepted as factual.  In other words, one who adopts the naturalist explanation of the start of living things, and the evolution of same, needs to demonstrate the hypothesis, by duplicating it !

  Thus far, neither have they produced life..but they also have not demonstrated empirically, the process of evolution.

 Think about this...   Is it possible that some here have studied nothing but the evolution side of the question, and are indoctrinated into the club, without further study.

  While others here, have studied both sides of the question, and may well have a more balanced view.  Possible?!

[darkgael]

IG:
  ”Thus far, neither have they produced life..but they also have not demonstrated empirically, the process of evolution”
Producing life? Abiogenesis. It has not been demonstrated or explained. It is also not related to the theory of evolution (which has been explained and demonstrated.)
”You don’t “prove” evolution, you observe it, like you observe other things. Can you “prove hurricanes”, or “prove apples”? It’s a really weird thing to say.  It’s a different thing to propose an explanation for how it works, and that’s the theory of evolution. Still, you cannot “prove” it, you can test and confirm its predictions, and fail to disprove it. If it has predictive power, then it is useful, so we use it.  And that’s why we use the theory of evolution to explain how evolution works.  If you’re asking how to confirm the theory of evolution, the then answer is that you test its predictions, as with any other theory.  The theory of evolution explains that evolution is driven by natural selection, that the change in alleles frequencies in a population over time will tend towards better adaptation to the population’s environment, due to natural selection. Those individuals who are more fit to their environemnt will tend to statistically survive and reproduce more successfully than those who are not, which means that the alleles thatllproduce better fitness will become more common in the population over time, and therefore the population as a whole will become more fit to its environment.  So that’s what you test. It’s been demonstrates so, so many times. And this simpe fact is used in many different fields, and is behind a lot of modern technology, not just in biology, but also in fields related to computer science, as not only living things can evolve things way. We also evovle designs, and use evolution by natural seleciton in machine learning and advanced robots, for example.  But honestly, you shouldn’t even have to demonstrate this empirically, since it’s so obvious through logic that natural selection will produce evolution towards better fitness.”

That other school of thought to which you refer.....what are its empirical proofs?

(and what happened to ”agree to disagree”?)

[darkgael]

Let's clear up a couple of things.
T-Rex DNA: there are no samples of this.

Changing dates of carbon 14 dating from thousands to millions?? I am not saying that the anecdote is wrong but the Professor had to have been a fool to do it. Anyone knowledgeable who read the paper would have seen the lie. Radiometric carbon dating is not reliable beyond 20000 Years.

[ironglow]

From DG;

    " [That other school of thought to which you refer.....what are its empirical proofs?


   We find strong indicators of the intelligent design theory..  But again, its a theory, same as  evolution.

  I a sense, we are both operating upon faith. 
   
  Your community,. faith in Darwin & Co., the Christian  community..... faith in God & Co.

[darkgael]

Darwin was long ago left behind in the process of understanding how evolution works.
Lots of people do not understand that and keep on referring to Darwin as if his 19th century ideas are still relevant in the 21st.

[ironglow]

  I agree on radio carbon not being accurate beyond -20,000, but the accuracy begins to widen before that time.

  Yes, Darwin has faded long ago, but his error (IMO) goes on, and he is the genesis of it.

  If we are to be fair..true "science' should not be "settled' quite so easily on circumstantial evidence.  I believe it behooves science to keep on searching.

  You tried to pass off Piltdown man and Nebraska man.  Piltdown man being a collection of ape bones deposited in a grevel pit to be "discovered".

  Nebraska man was created from a single tooth..then on a trip back to the location, they found the remainder of the bones..of a wild hog..
  Keep in mind though, these phonies were "settled' among some scientists, for some time..which proves why we should keep searching.

  https://www.livescience.com/56327-piltdown-man-hoax.html

  We should be careful, since some "scientists' can build a whole man...from a pig's tooth !

   https://owlcation.com/stem/Nebraska-Man-or-a-Pigs-Tooth

[Bob Riebe]

If proper and improper have no absolutes, there is no such thing as proper and improper.

If humanity is just a biological accident, then there is NO proper and improper; whom ever pulls the strings decides what should or should not be.

God said: here is the facts Jack, take it or leave it but you will pay for your decision one way or the other without exceptions.

The basic moral absolute is do good avoid evil -- based on what if there is no God, no God, no moral absolute. God defines good and evil, and gives an get out jail card for those with Faith in God, not good works, Faith only.
Humanity a biological accident? Where did that come from?

Evolution.
If humanity, and all of science and civilization,  was not the act of a designer creating, then it is strictly an accidnet; there is no inbetween.

[ironglow]

Changing dates of carbon 14 dating from thousands to millions?? I am not saying that the anecdote is wrong but the Professor had to have been a fool to do it. Anyone knowledgeable who read the paper would have seen the lie. Radiometric carbon dating is not reliable beyond 20000 Years.

 
    From DG; 
    Does he now? Meyer’s response is an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy. He offers no proof that cannot be disputed. “These things are so complex that they had to have been done by God.” The odds are so astronomical as to be virtually impossible. And so on 

   ...But cannot any proof offered by Special creationists or Darwinian evolutionists, be dispute by the other side?  The materialists seem to be caught in a rut, sitting upon their smug duffs...repeating old slogans, rather than examining new evidence.

   Also above, DG offers this;
    " Let's clear up a couple of things.  T-Rex DNA: there are no samples of this.

  So DG, how then do you explain this;

   https://www.history.com/news/scientists-find-soft-tissue-in-75-million-year-old-dinosaur-bones#:~:text=Even%20so%2C%20scientists%20have%20found,bone%20of%20a%20Tyrannosaurus%20rex.

   https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

[darkgael]

Bob: You are confusing abiogenesis and evolution. Modern evolutionary synthesis does not address the moment that life appeared.

IG: A whole man from a pig’s tooth. Yes, a sorry state of affairs. Forensic paleontology has moved on, as has all scientific investigation, since 1922. Creationism has not changed at all. How could it?
About the soft tissue/dna/ TRex thing……..yes soft tissue was found. If there was a reference to the concrete discovery of T-Rex DNA, I missed it.

Then, in 2007, Schweitzer and her colleagues analyzed the chemistry of the T. rex proteins. They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen — which makes sense, as modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs such as T. rex.