Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals

You're playing word games. You're trying to give "just so" definitions to words like "know" and "prove" and "theory" in an attempt to make your nonsensical statements sensical. Ain't gonna work. The words already have definitions.As I've already told you several times, I've abandoned use of the word "know" because of your insistence on using it in an absolute sense. That's not the only definition of "know," but it's the one you're insisting on, an inappropriate one for science though not for religion, and rather than spend time going round and round with you on it I have abandoned use of the word. Tragic, I know. So I won't be responding to any claims you make about knowing things. This isn't an admission but an explanation that takes into account the tentative nature of science. Ignoring this because the word "know" is being used in an absolutist sense contrary to the nature of science with its tentative qualities.
​ Ignoring this because the word "know" is being used in an absolutist sense contrary to the nature of science with its tentative qualities.Science deals with evidence, and the observational evidence tells us how evolution works in the here and now. But our understanding of how evolution works will change as we gather additional evidence and experience new insights.Let me take you through the logic of why science can't prove anything. Say science proved something to be true. Now that it's been proven true it cannot someday be proven untrue. If it were later proven untrue that would mean the original proof was wrong. If things proven can later be unproven then nothing is ever truly proven.Therefore, science makes no attempt to prove things. It supports them with evidence and interpretational frameworks called theories until they're accepted by a majority of the relevant scientific community. That leaves open the possibility of additional evidence and insight changing our understanding. This is the principle of tentativity.It doesn't matter how carefully you word things. Science already has a clear definition, and playing games with words won't change that.--Percy

Okay, well since science doesn't prove anything, how can a scientist claim to "know how evolution works"?

 Also, that has been answered so many times that you have no basis to claim that it has not be answered. No amount of your stubborn willful stupidity could ever justify your endless repetition of your BS nonsense.Therefore, every time you post that nonsense, that means that you are lying through your ass (which, like with your stupid troll-god, is your true face).Therefore, your new song:  

Dredge dogs on with: the same way a baseball fielder can catch a fly ball hit towards him. you know that they cannot model exactly how, but we can know how good enough to catch it.have you ever heard a bunch of guys up on stage trying to get in tune? at some point one will say "Okay, that's good enough for folksinging!"tentatively. holding the place for the way it happens until something better comes along. Einstein did not disprove Newton - he improved the Theory. a replacement theory has to completely describe what the former theory has already done, plus explain a little bit more.right now there is very little left to explain about how evolution works.

Edited by xongsmith, : very little left, not very left

So if a scientist says "I know how such-and-such works...", he actually means "I know a theory for how such-and-such works"? If so, that sounds like a misuse of the word "know" to me. Please show me a dictionary definition of "know" that includes the word"tentatively" or "theory".Here's one dictionary definition of "know":
to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certaintyPlease explain how "tentatively" or "theory" can be reconciled with "fact ... truth ... certainty". Really? "evolution" includes the evolution that allegedly produced the history of life on earth as revealed by the fossil record ... so please explain how, for example, an amphibian's double-circulation heart (allegedly) evolved from the single-circulation heart of a fish.

I can't tell if you're joking or just being a troll or are just an idiot.--Percy

Maybe science just isn't your thing.--Percy

That's a poor definition of "know".Knowing has more to do with acquaintance than with factuality. I can know the story of Little Red Riding Hood, even though it is not factual.

Argumentum ad dictionario is one of the stupidest fallacies committed by evil creationist trolls. The moment that one starts to try to change reality by redefining (and twisting and distorting) the meanings of words, then we know exactly what kind of lying, deceiving low-life we're dealing with (eg, apologists, creationists, theologians, lawyers). Words and definitions are intended to describe what we observe, not create an entirely new reality.IOW, WORD MAGICK DOES NOT WORK! It's not a real thing. 
As you're jumping about shouting "ooga booga!", consider the words of Mexican President José López Portillo on 60 Minutes circa 1980:

quote

---

It's been a long time since we've worn feathers.

---

 

It's a serious question. How can a scientist claim to "know how evolution works" if science doesn't prove anything?

Once again, science does not deal in proof. It deals in falsifiable hypotheses supported by evidence.And we can show that science works. We have successful medical treatments; we have sat nav; we have computers; we have machinery; we have cosmology and amazing telescopes; we have buildings, roads, railways, ships, aeroplanes; we have radar; we have electricity; we have an incredible amount of evidence that science works, based on its falsifiable hypotheses and its evidence. Science has never proved a single thing - and yet scientists know their stuff. If they didn't, none of what we get from science would work. When we say scientists know something, we are not saying they've proved it - we are saying they have mountains of evidence to demonstrate the validity of the relevant hypotheses.You have nothing other than a conman's word games.

Well, I guess that eliminates joking as a possibility. You've asked this and similar questions over and over again, they've been answered over and over again, why are you repeating the question yet again as if none of this thread's history ever happened? Are you a troll or an idiot?--Percy

Much of the problem in many debates which we have here centers around the definition and common usage of the words "know" and "truth".They accuse you of being a troll because you tease them and stick to your own definitions and understanding of know and truth.They get frustrated because you seemingly won't allow the scientific method to stick to its own definitions.
|You and I differ in that you have so much of your internal validity of *your* definitions of knowing, knowledge, absolute truths vs tentative truths pending evidence all wrapped up in creationism as a way to "prove" God. I consider it a minor issue, unlike Ken Ham who insists that a literal Genesis is imperative for belief and for "science" as he understands it.

My theory is that he insists on sticking to his definitions of know and truth.He keeps trying to get everyone here to consider his definitions, where it is evident that you are more than comfortable and 90+% confident of your own. At least that's how I see it.Add byu Edit: Ask a believer if they *know* God. Then ask them if they know everything about God. If they say, no, remind them that science only knows what the evidence shows to a high probability and not a 100% truth claim. Only religion insists on 100% claims.

No. If a scientist says "I know how such-and-such works..." he actually means "know" to a much, much higher degree than you and I use it every day.Think of anything you "know" about the world:1. Undisturbed water will settle to being level.You know this, and I know this.
It's why we put that little water bubble in all levels - it's how "being level" works.-but the ocean goes around the earth... if you had a long enough level, it wouldn't bend with the ocean and it would eventually say that the ocean "isn't level"
-because this isn't how "level" actually works. Scientists know it's because of gravity and being pulled to the center of the earth and this simply doesn't matter on the kind of scale we normally need to measure "level" things-but you can put a dish of water in a spinning system, and if you spin it smoothly enough, you can have it rotate all over the place and the water will settle wherever it is without being "level."
-because this isn't how "level" actually works. Scientists know it's because of the force exerted on the water due to the spinning system and this sort of thing doesn't need to be considered for how we normally measure "level" things-but there are aspects of gravity that we don't fully understand
-but there are aspects of forces-caused-by-spinning that we don't fully understandAnd yet - we understand them enough to understand how "being level" works
-and if we learn more, we'll add it to our knowledge on "being level."There are also issues we can think of that could cause problems:
-what if the level we're using isn't actually using water, but something that looks like it but doesn't act like it accurately?
-then the level won't work... and we won't know it-what if the level we're using is old and defective and the water inside it doesn't sit in a smooth cavity anymore and the bubble doesn't rest where it's normally supposed to rest?
-then the level won't work... and we won't know it-what if the level has had a sophisticated, undetectable cover placed over it that displays something that "looks like the level bubble" but actually isn't... and this fake cover displays an incorrect position for the water bubble?
-then the level won't work... and we won't know itHow can we prevent any of these things?
-by testing the level and verifying it against other aspects of reality... which is simply describing "doing science" on it-what if something we haven't thought of yet and don't have sufficient technology to detect yet is affecting the level?
-this sort of issue is something that is present with all knowledge. It's unescapable, for everyone, about everything... simply because no one knows everything.
-science has been our best (and only) tool to date in going into this realm, making progress, and growing our knowledge while shrinking this "unknown" area.That's how "know" works in science.
-it's the best way we have to "know" things. Better than any other method ever used by anyone else in any portion of history we've ever been aware of.
-Science uses this way to "know" things-Most other people think the word "know" means "I can't think of a way it could be wrong."
-but this is always wrong... because there can be many things you can't think of that could make it wrong and you're simply unaware of them
-Science accepts this, and builds a system to attack this problem... no other system does this, and is usually left "being wrong" at some point instead of learning/adapting on how to be right.If you think "truth" and "certainty" actually exist in the realm of "human knowledge"
-then it's you who is using the inferior form of "know" and you are unable to identify the problems with your own thinkingWhen a Scientist uses the word "know" they are fundamentally higher than any other form of knowledge - because it's aware of the possible issues and is always working on correcting them instead of ignoring them and ending up being more and more wrong as time goes on.When a Scientist moves onto the word "theory"... they are even moving up higher than the word "know." As a theory, in Science, requires much more reliance on evidence and confidence than any other single aspect a scientist may say that they "know."Once you understand this... you can begin to understand the simple errors you've been making in all your claims against evolution.
To anyone who actually understands how human knowledge works - your objections to evolution are just... immature misunderstandings.