Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals

You never accepted the verdict.

That was a miscarriage of justice. It will be overturned one day ... just like Roe v Wade was.The truth cannot be suppressed forever.

1.
Believe it or not, I am not a scientist, but it's my understanding that there's is a big difference between
(a) a scientist claiming to "know" how such-and-such works, and
(b) a scientist proposing a theory for how such-and-such works.(a) carries the burden of truth. I imagine that if a scientist publicly claims to "know" something, he is expected to prove to his peers that his claimed knowledge is in fact, true ... lest he be accused of intellectual fraud.
(b) on the other hand, does not carry the burden of truth. If a scientist proposes a theory, he is not expected to prove to his peers that it's true.2.
If a scientist claims to "know" how evolution works, he must prove that he knows how evolution works in
(a) real-time (the present), and
(b) the past (the history of life as revealed by the fossil record).You admit that "scientifically we can't prove" that scientists know what process produced the changes evident in the fossil record. It follows therefore that since no scientist can satisfy (b), no scientist can claim to "know" how evolution works. That being so, how can a scientist claim to "know" how evolution works even in real-time if he can't prove anything?

Like I said, a miscarriage of justice.A sad day for truth, to be sure.

​ Tell me, good sir, is it(a) the genetic similarties between humans and other animals that have proven useful in medicine, or is it(b) the explanation for why those similarities exist (universal common ancestry)that has proven useful in medicine?It is my fervent hope that, upon reflection, you will come to the conclusion that it is (a) that has proven useful in medicine, and that that utility is indepedent of (b), which is actually useless and irrelevant. I completely agree. It does ... but against all odds, I 've somehow managed to survive all these years.

The truth of divine creation.

It's possible that your assessment contains an element of truth.

If you take "due to universal common ancestry" out of that sentence, you are left with ..."It's the genetic similarities between humans and other animals that have proven useful in medicine."The "due to universal common ancestry" is irrelevant. Medicine doesn't need to know what produced the genetic similarities to make use of them.

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

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.

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

Deleted

Who's conning whom? In future, whenever I hear a scientist claiming to "know" something, I will bear in mind that what he really means is, "I don't actually know ... but I'm pretty sure". I'm not aware of any dictionary that supports the "scientific definition" of that word.And I suppose it's safe to assume that the scientific interpretation of "knowledge" is as misleading and unorthodox as their use of "know".I hope the law courts are aware that if a scientist takes the stand and says "I know the defendent stole my car", what he really means is, "I'm pretty sure the defendent stole my car".

To a scientist it must look like a terrible definition!I mean, words like "fact ... truth ... certainty" are a world away from the scientific definition of "know" - which is something like "I"m pretty sure I know" or "I think I know" or "according to my theory".

654 Yep ... who the hell cares what the dictionary says or how 99.99999% of the population interpret a word, when you can hijack a word like "know" a put your own spin on it? Oh, the irony!