How does one determine, using the scientific method, that the earth is billions of years old?

[Skeeter]

Evidence is used to overthrow theories.

It never confirms them.

It falsifies hypotheses in such a way that a remaining hypothesis becomes a supported conclusion. Multiple conclusions that converge from different angles becomes a theory.

Stripe is an inartful dodger.

 

[Stripe]

It falsifies hypotheses in such a way that a remaining hypothesis becomes a supported conclusion. Multiple conclusions that converge from different angles becomes a theory.

Was that a retraction?

Evidence never confirms a theory.

It can only ever falsify them.

 

[Idolater]

It falsifies hypotheses in such a way that a remaining hypothesis becomes a supported conclusion. Multiple conclusions that converge from different angles becomes a theory.

Basically agreed. The trouble is that this is a bit like the game "Operation", and the theories are the ones that never trigger the 'buzzer'. We can never know if this is the real 'surgeon' or just some kid who's good at 'Operation'.

For instance Bell's Theorem. We can never know if QED and its uncertainty is elemental to the universe, or if there is some non-local hidden variable. I mean, unless the non-local hidden variable reveals Himself.

 

[Skeeter]

Evidence never confirms a theory.

It can only ever falsify them.

Evidence may modify a theory, but it rarely falsifies one as a whole body of evidence will need to be explained in a different light to do so. Seemingly contradictory evidence improves a theory usually.

 

[expos4ever]

This is the logical fallacy of an appeal to popularity and authority. While it is true that most experts advocate Darwinism, that does nothing to establish the veracity of the theory.

When you learn how to stop committing logical fallacies, perhaps you can be part of a sensible conversation.

You guys try this stunt all the time. It is as silly as saying that I am committing an "appeal to authority" fallacy if I argue that smoking causes cancer because medical experts agree that it does. Strictly speaking, yes, I am "appealing to authority". And if we were having a formal debate, it would be inappropriate for me to appeal to experts. But we are not having a formal debate, we are discussing in an internet forum what is, and what is not the case.

We need to defer to experts to make sense of the world - that is the nature of the beast. We cannot determine for ourselves whether cigarettes cause cancer, or whether space is curved, or whether we evolved from lower forms. But is inane to suggest that cigarettes do not cause cancer! You surely know this. And you surely know the analogy to evolution is valid - in both domains, highly trained experts have reached a definitive conclusion.

 

[Skeeter]

We need to defer to experts to make sense of the world - that is the nature of the beast. We cannot determine for ourselves whether cigarettes cause cancer, or whether space is curved, or whether we evolved from lower forms. But is inane to suggest that cigarettes do not cause cancer! You surely know this. And you surely know the analogy to evolution is valid - in both domains, highly trained experts have reached a definitive conclusion.

I wouldn't hurt to have a basic understanding of evolution and NOT JUST defer to experts. People have legit questions about it and need a response or to them their ignorance becomes proof that evolution could not have happened.

 

[expos4ever]

Nope.

Evidence is used to overthrow theories.

It never confirms them.

I think you are not telling the whole story - yes, evidence that is at odds with the theory can "overthrow" a theory, but as Skeeter has correctly pointed out, usually this evidence only requires that the theory be modified.

But the more evidence we have that coheres with the theory, the more reasonable it becomes to believe what the theory asserts.

 

[expos4ever]

I wouldn't hurt to have a basic understanding of evolution and NOT JUST defer to experts. People have legit questions about it and need a response or to them their ignorance becomes proof that evolution could not have happened.

Yes, but surely you are not denying that it is entirely reasonable to believe that evolution is correct solely on the say-so of the experts?

 

[Right Divider]

You have to ask yourself what needs to be observed to draw conclusions in science.

Direct observation is best.

Can it be pieces of the puzzle or must it be the whole thing?

In the case of "macro-evolution" there is nothing observed at all.

Do you apply your requirement of overarching observe-ability to other areas of science or just evolution?

Any and all.

 

[Skeeter]

Direct observation is best.

We are discussing what is necessary and sufficient, not what is best.

In the case of "macro-evolution" there is nothing observed at all.

Fossils are observed and their location and surroundings recorded. DNA sequences are observed and compared. To a logical person, macroevalution can be supported or rejected based on these observations. You cannot see because you are blinded.

 

[Right Divider]

We are discussing what is necessary and sufficient, not what is best.

Again, direct observations are best. But not everything is (or was) directly observable.
Some particles were discovered using vapor chambers. So the particle was not directly observed, but was indirectly observed.

Fossils are observed and their location and surroundings recorded.

Fossils exist in the present. Their location and surroundings are due to a global flood and not some supposed millions of years of deposition.

DNA sequences are observed and compared.

Indeed then can. And there are MANY different ways to compare. Different methods of comparison lead to different results.

To a logical person, macroevalution can be supported or rejected based on these observations.

It has nothing to do with being a logical person. Those "observations" are NOT unequivocally supportive of "macro-evolution". They are interpreted that way despite much evidence to the contrary.

You cannot see because you are blinded.

No, I am not. But you most certainly are blinded by your own bias.

 

[Stripe]

Evidence may modify a theory, but it rarely falsifies one as a whole body of evidence will need to be explained in a different light to do so. Seemingly contradictory evidence improves a theory usually.

Logic must be your second language.

Evidence can never improve or modify a theory.

It can only ever falsify them.

 

[Stripe]

You guys try this stunt all the time.

The stunt of insisting on a coherent, rational philosophy of science?

It is as silly as saying that I am committing an "appeal to authority" fallacy if I argue that smoking causes cancer because medical experts agree that it does.

Nope. The key difference is that we are both likely to cede to the authority of the medical experts without one of us saying that the evidence shows their idea to be wrong.

If I were to disagree with you on smoking, it would still be a logical fallacy on your part to insist that the idea is true because experts believe it.

Strictly speaking, yes, I am "appealing to authority". And if we were having a formal debate, it would be inappropriate for me to appeal to experts. But we are not having a formal debate, we are discussing in an internet forum what is, and what is not the case.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You're allowed to present useless arguments because you're on the Internet?

We need to defer to experts to make sense of the world - that is the nature of the beast.

No, we don't.

Most people are capable of understanding explanations.

We cannot determine for ourselves whether cigarettes cause cancer, or whether space is curved, or whether we evolved from lower forms.

This is the fallacy of begging the question.
We don't need to understand an idea that the evidence has falsified.

But is inane to suggest that cigarettes do not cause cancer! You surely know this. And you surely know the analogy to evolution is valid - in both domains, highly trained experts have reached a definitive conclusion.

And you're free to chase after them and bow to their every whim. Just don't expect to convince rational people by insisting that things must be as the experts believe because they are experts.

I think you are not telling the whole story - yes, evidence that is at odds with the theory can "overthrow" a theory, but as Skeeter has correctly pointed out, usually this evidence only requires that the theory be modified.

There's no significant difference between tossing out a theory and modifying it.

These semantic debates of yours are boring.

But the more evidence we have that coheres with the theory, the more reasonable it becomes to believe what the theory asserts.

What people believe and why they believe it is irrelevant.

 

[expos4ever]

The stunt of insisting on a coherent, rational philosophy of science?

What, specifically, is wrong with my assertion that it is entirely rational to believe what trained experts tell us about evolution solely based on their say-so,

 

[expos4ever]

Nope. The key difference is that we are both likely to cede to the authority of the medical experts without one of us saying that the evidence shows their idea to be wrong.

If I were to disagree with you on smoking, it would still be a logical fallacy on your part to insist that the idea is true because experts believe it.

Are you suggesting that there is evidence that undermines evolution? Well, where is it?

In any event, it is beyond obvious that it is entirely reasonable to believe something on the basis of expert opinion. We do this all the time:

- we believe that smoking causes cancer only on the basis of the experts.
- we believe the Milky Way galaxy is 100,000 light-years in diameter only on the basis of the experts.
- we believe that viruses causes SAR COV-2 only on the basis of the experts.

and so on.

To suggest that we cannot trust the consensus of highly trained experts flies in the face of the manifests facts of reality - we do this all the time, and we are wise to do so.

 

[Right Divider]

What, specifically, is wrong with my assertion that it is entirely rational to believe what trained experts tell us about evolution solely based on their say-so,

Because that is NOT a logical argument. It is a FALLACIOUS argument.

Again, I will tell you that truth is NOT determined by:

• Who believes something.
• What their credentials are.
• How many of them there are.

Now please get back on the TOPIC of this thread.

 

[Right Divider]

Are you suggesting that there is evidence that undermines evolution? Well, where is it?

You really should do a little research on the subject. Your ignorance is no excuse.

In any event, it is beyond obvious that it is entirely reasonable to believe something on the basis of expert opinion. We do this all the time:

- we believe that smoking causes cancer only on the basis of the experts.
- we believe the Milky Way galaxy is 100,000 light-years in diameter only on the basis of the experts.
- we believe that viruses causes SAR COV-2 only on the basis of the experts.

and so on.

That is all nonsense. These things MUST be determined using valid evidence and NOT just someone's opinion.

To suggest that we cannot trust the consensus of highly trained experts flies in the face of the manifests facts of reality - we do this all the time, and we are wise to do so.

You may "do this all the time". But that is still a FALLACIOUS way to think.

 

[JudgeRightly]

What, specifically, is wrong with my assertion that it is entirely rational to believe what trained experts tell us about evolution solely based on their say-so,

Because those "trained experts" can be wrong, and so to take what they say as correct, when they could very likely be wrong, despite them being 'trained experts," can result in people believing what is false as if it were true.

You don't see the problem with that?

 

[JudgeRightly]

You may "do this all the time". But that is still a FALLACIOUS way to think.

It's yet another fallacy, appeal to tradition.

 

[Right Divider]

It's yet another fallacy, appeal to tradition.

The "diehard" evolutionists here avoid facts like the plague... they always go to fallacious "logic". It's sad.