The Heresy of Scientists
cafe...@msn.com
if it is possible to witness that claim in an experiment or
observation. It is a wonderful paradigm which has allowed mankind to
progress very rapidly in technology over the last few hundred years.
Unfortunately, there are people who claim to be scientists and claim to
be doing science when it is not science at all. These people are called
evolutionists.
They claim that science proves that man evolved from lower-apes. Yet,
whenever you ask them to prove it, they point to circumstantial
evidence. They say look at this fossil here, look at how similar are
DNA are, look at how similar we are to apes. They never can directly
prove it. When you ask them to directly prove it, they say "It would
take millions of years to look at all of the generations. Since I don't
have a million years, I'm allowed to take shortcuts and show you
fossils and bones and the like." Of course, at this point they are
going against the core law of science, never to accept a claim to be
true unless one can witness that claim in an experiment or observation.
For instance, I could say, "In ten thousand years, man will evolve into
a fruits and vegetables. Of course, I can't directly prove it because
I'm not going to be around ten thousand years into the future, so I
don't need to give evidence. I'll just make up a story to support my
hypothesis - mankind is developing technology at a rapid pace. Soon
we'll develop robots to do everything for us. We'll be sitting down
most of the time watching TV and posting to internet chat rooms. Soon
natural selection will take hold and the people who are the most
successful are the ones with plantlike characteristics, because plants
don't move. Soon the "green" people will become the majority and will
develop leaves. Eventually, those who develop fruits or vegetables will
beat out the trees because they taste better...." Then this theory will
be supported unanimously by the university professors and they will
brainwash their 18 year old students into believing this story. Then
eventually society accepts this as a fact that we will one day become
fruits and vegetables. And then it will be illegal to teach alternative
theories like man evolving into a giant robot like the Borg on Star
Trek in which everyone "will be assimilated".
Anyway, scientists are lying when they say that evolution is a fact.
It's not. It's just a theory. A fact is something that a person is able
to directly witness.
Craig
hbar...@troy.edu
"Science is a unique in that a scientist only accepts a claim to be
true
if it is possible to witness that claim in an experiment or
observation"
Shows that you haven't a clue how science works.
HB
Richard Forrest
cafei...@msn.com wrote:
> Science is a unique in that a scientist only accepts a claim to be true
> if it is possible to witness that claim in an experiment or
> observation. It is a wonderful paradigm which has allowed mankind to
> progress very rapidly in technology over the last few hundred years.
> Unfortunately, there are people who claim to be scientists and claim to
> be doing science when it is not science at all. These people are called
> evolutionists.
>
> They claim that science proves that man evolved from lower-apes.
Not if they know anything about evolutionary theory they don't. Terms
such as "higher" and "lower" are *never* used.
>Yet,
> whenever you ask them to prove it, they point to circumstantial
> evidence.
If someone asked me to prove it, I'd point out that science never
claims to prove anything. That is not the nature of science.
>They say look at this fossil here, look at how similar are
> DNA are, look at how similar we are to apes. They never can directly
> prove it.
Of course they can't. This is science we're talking about. Science does
not offer proof.
>When you ask them to directly prove it, they say "It would
> take millions of years to look at all of the generations. Since I don't
> have a million years, I'm allowed to take shortcuts and show you
> fossils and bones and the like."
Well, I wouldn't. I say "This is the evidence on which I base my
hypothesis of human origins. If you can find an alternative
interpretation for this evidence, or find evidence which falsifies my
hypothesis, go ahead."
>Of course, at this point they are
> going against the core law of science, never to accept a claim to be
> true unless one can witness that claim in an experiment or observation.
>
I'm sorry, but which scientist told you that this is a "core law of
science"? Science is hypothesis testing.
> For instance, I could say, "In ten thousand years, man will evolve into
> a fruits and vegetables. Of course, I can't directly prove it because
> I'm not going to be around ten thousand years into the future, so I
> don't need to give evidence.
Quite so. This is a rather stupid idea which no scientist would
support.
> I'll just make up a story to support my
> hypothesis
Acting, incidentally, quite unlike a scientist. Scientist build their
hypotheses on evidence.
>- mankind is developing technology at a rapid pace. Soon
> we'll develop robots to do everything for us. We'll be sitting down
> most of the time watching TV and posting to internet chat rooms. Soon
> natural selection will take hold and the people who are the most
> successful are the ones with plantlike characteristics, because plants
> don't move. Soon the "green" people will become the majority and will
> develop leaves. Eventually, those who develop fruits or vegetables will
> beat out the trees because they taste better...." Then this theory will
> be supported unanimously by the university professors and they will
> brainwash their 18 year old students into believing this story. Then
> eventually society accepts this as a fact that we will one day become
> fruits and vegetables. And then it will be illegal to teach alternative
> theories like man evolving into a giant robot like the Borg on Star
> Trek in which everyone "will be assimilated".
I think you need to learn some more about the nature of science, and
how science operates. This is making you look very, very silly.
>
> Anyway, scientists are lying when they say that evolution is a fact.
No really. Evolution happens. We can and have observed it happening.
> It's not. It's just a theory.
1) All science is built theories
2) Evolutionary theory is an explanation for the observed fact that
evolution occurs. It is a model for the mechanism by which evolution
operates.
>A fact is something that a person is able
> to directly witness.
And one can personally witness evolution.
Mind you, nobody has ever personally witnessed a molecule. So I guess
that it isn't a fact that molecules exist. Never mind - their existence
is a good working hypothesis, just like evolution.
RF
>
> Craig
Bill Hudson
You don't know much about science, do you? If you stopped to think
about it for a couple of minutes, you would realize that there are many
branches of science which proceed based on indirect evidence. Your
criteria of being able to 'directly witness' something in order for it
to be considered science is absurd, and would exclude a whole host of
scientific inquiries.
Evolution is a theory that has an overwhelming amount of supporting
evidence. I would say that it is one of the best supported theories in
all of science. It is able to explain oddities such as ring species,
carnivore-like teeth on herbivorous pandas, and the development of
antibiotic resistance in bacteria. What would be your explanation for
these?
Robert J. Kolker
> Science is a unique in that a scientist only accepts a claim to be true
> if it is possible to witness that claim in an experiment or
> observation. It is a wonderful paradigm which has allowed mankind to
> progress very rapidly in technology over the last few hundred years.
> Unfortunately, there are people who claim to be scientists and claim to
> be doing science when it is not science at all. These people are called
> evolutionists.
The corpus of genetics and molecular biology is well supported in the
laboratory. Darwin based his theory of careful observation of flora and
fauna. It is will grounded empirically.
You are complaining that transition from species A to species B is not
directly observable. Neither is the revolution of the earth. We have to
infer it from motions relative to other bodies and from aberration of
light and stellar parallax. We cannot feel the earth go around the sun,
but we can infer that it does.
Bob Kolker
cafe...@msn.com
googled when typing in "scientific method":
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
"The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics,
the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."
It looks to me like the evolutionists are dodging step 4.
Craig
SeppoP
<snip>
You thunk up all that all by yourself, or did your preacher help much?
>
> Craig
>
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Conspiracy of Doves
jury wasn't there to see the crime get committed.
Fossils are the very least of the evidence that we have that supports
the idea that humans evolved from ancient apes.
CreateThis
> Oh really? I haven't a clue how science works? See the first item
> googled when typing in "scientific method":
> http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
>
> "The scientific method has four steps
> 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
>
> 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics,
> the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
> mathematical relation.
>
> 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
> or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
>
> 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
> independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."
>
> It looks to me like the evolutionists are dodging step 4.
You mean some creationist website somewhere told you it looks like that
to you. You haven't had a single thought of your own in years, have you?
CT
coast...@gmail.com
Scientific theories are explanations of facts. If you don't believe me
all you need to do is look up the word "theory" in the dictionary.
Here I'll save you the trouble...
Theory: "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group
of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested
or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural
phenomena."
-- dictionary.com
There are two distinct definitions of the word "theory".
In the scentence, "Joe has a theory that Mike studies music." The word
theory is used in the general sense. This is how you're using the
word theory. But that is not a scientific theory.
In the scentence, "Mike studied music theory". The word theory is
being used in the same way that describes the "Theory of Evolution". A
scientific theory is an explanation of tested facts. The explaination
changes as new facts are uncovered but there is no contention at all
that a scientific theory is scientific FACT.
John Bode
cafe...@msn.com wrote:
> Oh really? I haven't a clue how science works? See the first item
> googled when typing in "scientific method":
> http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
>
> "The scientific method has four steps
> 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
>
> 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics,
> the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
> mathematical relation.
>
> 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
> or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
>
> 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
> independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."
>
> It looks to me like the evolutionists are dodging step 4.
>
> Craig
>
Then it's safe to assume you have problems with much of astronomy and
geology, as they don't exactly rely on laboratory experiments either.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
> independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."
>
> It looks to me like the evolutionists are dodging step 4.
Vetting and checking is an everyday occurence. That is how that fellow
in Korea was caught in a lie.
Genetics and Molecular Biology are very well supported by overlapping
experiments. There is usually more than one experimental strategy to
support a hypothesis.
Bob Kolker
Richard Forrest
cafe...@msn.com wrote:
> Oh really? I haven't a clue how science works? See the first item
> googled when typing in "scientific method":
> http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
>
> "The scientific method has four steps
> 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
>
> 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics,
> the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
> mathematical relation.
>
> 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
> or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
>
> 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
> independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."
This is not a very good description of the scientific method, by the
way .Just because it's a page on the internet doesn't make it
authoritative.
This one seems rather better:
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000
# 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
# 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is
consistent with what you have observed.
# 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
# 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and
modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
# 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between
theory and experiment and/or observation.
Many branches of science, most notably astronomy, rely on observation
far more than experiment as your source suggests. Or perhaps you are
going to tell us that astronomy is not a science.
Next time you want to find out about the nature of science, or
scientific matters in general, why not ask a scientist? Many scientists
post on this forum, incidentally.
RF
Codeb...@bigsecret.com
Brilliant
> Craig
Richard Forrest
This is intended to be ironic, I hope?
RF
>
> > Craig
Bill Hudson
cafe...@msn.com wrote:
> Oh really? I haven't a clue how science works? See the first item
> googled when typing in "scientific method":
> http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
>
> "The scientific method has four steps
> 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
>
> 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics,
> the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
> mathematical relation.
>
> 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
> or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
>
> 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
> independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."
>
> It looks to me like the evolutionists are dodging step 4.
>
> Craig
>
Please don't top post, it makes the flow of conversation difficult to
follow.
As our resident philosopher of science likes to point out, the
'scientific method' is actually a collection of related but slightly
different methods which are used as appropriate to the individual
situation being studied. You have posted a listing of a basic method,
but just one method. If you want to measure the temperature of a
nuclear explosion, you don't experiment by setting off a bomb and
sticking a thermometer in it. That would not be an appropriate method
to use.
Many fields of scientific inquiry are not amenable to direct
observation of the processes. Geology, astronomy, forensic science,
etc, are a few examples.
WRT step 4; experiments and observations both in the lab and in the
field have confirmed that all of the major predictions of evolution do
in fact occur.
hbar...@troy.edu
evolution can only be proven by having a fully-formed elephant leap out
of rabbits vagina!
HB
cafe...@msn.com
OK, your description mentioned "observations" while the first one that
I googled mentioned only "experiments". Fine. Now tell me, how can I
"observe" a lower ape giving birth to generations which eventually
produces a human being?
You can't. Therefore, evolutionism is a religion, not science. It
shouldn't be taught in public school just like intelligent design and
creationism shouldn't be taught in public school. Let's just teach our
kids real science that has real-world applications so they will be able
to compete with the China and India, as I hear their economies are
evolving fast.
Craig
Bill Wayne
Probably not. I believe this man thinks god talked to him, and once
said evolution was false because we can not find the labs where monkeys
created humans (or something like that. It's a bit hazy, now.)
Bill
> RF
> >
> > > Craig
Lee Jay
> OK, your description mentioned "observations" while the first one that
> I googled mentioned only "experiments". Fine. Now tell me, how can I
> "observe" a lower ape giving birth to generations which eventually
> produces a human being?
>
> You can't. Therefore, evolutionism is a religion, not science
Oh please. If I take you to a home and inside you find a person who is
not moving, lying in a pool of blood, and a bullet is found within
them, you are claiming I can't prove that person was shot because I
didn't "observe" the shooting.
Forensic evidence (such as that used to understand history) is *more
reliable* than eye-witness testimony because it can be verified by
independent parties. If I had a video tape (a long one) of earlier
apes evolving into humans, how would you be able to prove I didn't
falsify the tape? If I had watched it occur and told you about it, how
would you know if I was telling the truth? On the other hand, if I
give you access to the physical evidence (which is plentiful) you can
do your own tests to verify mine.
Lee Jay
CreateThis
> ... tell me, how can I
> "observe" a lower ape giving birth to generations which eventually
> produces a human being?
>
> You can't. Therefore, evolutionism is a religion, not science. It
> shouldn't be taught in public school just like intelligent design and
> creationism shouldn't be taught in public school.
That's really stupid (did God make you that way in preparation for his
Holy War on Reason?), but let's go with it for a minute: If we
shouldn't teach science or religion, what do you propose we should teach?
Is the Discovery Institute cloning morons? There can't really be this
many...
CT
wf3...@comcast.net
>Science is a unique in that a scientist only accepts a claim to be true
>if it is possible to witness that claim in an experiment or
>observation. It is a wonderful paradigm which has allowed mankind to
>progress very rapidly in technology over the last few hundred years.
>Unfortunately, there are people who claim to be scientists and claim to
>be doing science when it is not science at all. These people are called
>evolutionists.
>
funny that those of us who are scientists, but not evolutionary
biologists (i'm a chemist), look at evolutionary biology as science.
>They claim that science proves that man evolved from lower-apes. Yet,
>whenever you ask them to prove it, they point to circumstantial
>evidence. They say look at this fossil here, look at how similar are
>DNA are, look at how similar we are to apes. They never can directly
>prove it.
the fact is evolution can be observed, and it can be done in the lab.
the fact is speciation has been observed. evolution is a fact of
nature.
When you ask them to directly prove it, they say "It would
>take millions of years to look at all of the generations. Since I don't
>have a million years, I'm allowed to take shortcuts and show you
>fossils and bones and the like." Of course, at this point they are
>going against the core law of science, never to accept a claim to be
>true unless one can witness that claim in an experiment or observation.
wrong. since evolution can be observed by experimentation, by your own
standards it's proved as happening.
>
>
>Anyway, scientists are lying when they say that evolution is a fact.
>It's not. It's just a theory. A fact is something that a person is able
>to directly witness.
>
>Craig
ah. scientists are lying. there's a worldwide conspiracy to destroy
fundamentalist american xtianity....
this is proof that creationists are liars, and creationism breeds
paranoia...
Bill Hudson
A short list of things science can't directly observe:
- Electrons
- Continental Drift
- Stellar evolution
- Memory storage in the human brain
wf3...@comcast.net
>Oh really? I haven't a clue how science works? See the first item
>googled when typing in "scientific method":
those of us who are scientists agree. you don't know h ow science
works.
>http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
>
>"The scientific method has four steps
>1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
>
>2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics,
>the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
>mathematical relation.
>
>3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
>or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
>
>4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
>independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."
>
>It looks to me like the evolutionists are dodging step 4.
ever hear of bacterial resistance observed in labs? i'm a chemist.
i've looked at the work evolutionary biologists have done. it's
science.
creationists, on the other hand, are liars...and hypocrites. they've
never done a single experiment, yet say 'god did it' is science.
wf3...@comcast.net
>
>OK, your description mentioned "observations" while the first one that
>I googled mentioned only "experiments". Fine. Now tell me, how can I
>"observe" a lower ape giving birth to generations which eventually
>produces a human being?
speciation has been observed. therefore you're simply wrong when you
say evolution isnt observed. it is.
>You can't. Therefore, evolutionism is a religion, not science.
creationist cliche. we can't help it if your view of the bible is
wrong. but it's not the job of science to pull your fat out of the
fire.
It
>shouldn't be taught in public school just like intelligent design and
>creationism shouldn't be taught in public school. Let's just teach our
>kids real science that has real-world applications so they will be able
>to compete with the China and India, as I hear their economies are
>evolving fast.
you are part of the reason science is dying here in the states.
coast...@gmail.com
familiar with. I'm guessing it's like saying something's "stupid" when
you mean that it is good. Or calling someone "Tiny" when they're really
fat.
NashtOn
> Science is a unique in that a scientist only accepts a claim to be true
> if it is possible to witness that claim in an experiment or
> progress very rapidly in technology over the last few hundred years.
> Unfortunately, there are people who claim to be scientists and claim to
> be doing science when it is not science at all. These people are called
> evolutionists.
>
> whenever you ask them to prove it, they point to circumstantial
> evidence. They say look at this fossil here, look at how similar are
> DNA are, look at how similar we are to apes. They never can directly
> take millions of years to look at all of the generations. Since I don't
> have a million years, I'm allowed to take shortcuts and show you
> fossils and bones and the like." Of course, at this point they are
> true unless one can witness that claim in an experiment or observation.
>
> For instance, I could say, "In ten thousand years, man will evolve into
> a fruits and vegetables.
Man *has* evolved into fruits and vegetables.
They're called evolutionists.
Nicolas
Of course, I can't directly prove it because
> I'm not going to be around ten thousand years into the future, so I
> don't need to give evidence. I'll just make up a story to support my
> hypothesis - mankind is developing technology at a rapid pace. Soon
> we'll develop robots to do everything for us. We'll be sitting down
> most of the time watching TV and posting to internet chat rooms. Soon
> natural selection will take hold and the people who are the most
> successful are the ones with plantlike characteristics, because plants
> don't move. Soon the "green" people will become the majority and will
> develop leaves. Eventually, those who develop fruits or vegetables will
> beat out the trees because they taste better...." Then this theory will
> be supported unanimously by the university professors and they will
> brainwash their 18 year old students into believing this story. Then
> eventually society accepts this as a fact that we will one day become
> fruits and vegetables. And then it will be illegal to teach alternative
> theories like man evolving into a giant robot like the Borg on Star
> Trek in which everyone "will be assimilated".
>
Elf M. Sternberg
> Oh really? I haven't a clue how science works? See the first item
> googled when typing in "scientific method":
> http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
>
> "The scientific method has four steps
> 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
>
> 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics,
> the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
> mathematical relation.
>
> 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
> or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
>
> 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
> independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."
>
> It looks to me like the evolutionists are dodging step 4.
And geologists and astronomers aren't? Tell me, how do we
"perform experiments to test predictions" of, say, the emergence of the
geologic column, or star formation?
Elf
Robert J. Kolker
> wrong. since evolution can be observed by experimentation, by your own
> standards it's proved as happening.
Mutations in microbes and some insects have been obsered in "real time".
For the higher taxa we rely on indirect evidence.
Bob Kolker
>
>
Robert J. Kolker
>
> And geologists and astronomers aren't? Tell me, how do we
> "perform experiments to test predictions" of, say, the emergence of the
> geologic column, or star formation?
What about predicting eclipses?
Or anticipating a supernova visually observed after getting an increased
flux of neutrinos.
Bob Kolker
wade
cafe...@msn.com wrote:
> Science is a unique in that a scientist only accepts a claim to be true
> if it is possible to witness that claim in an experiment or
> observation. It is a wonderful paradigm which has allowed mankind to
For instance, by testing DNA we can identify if a specimen comes
from a specific individual or someone relates to them. Of course,
there is often a degree of uncertainty but that is also something
that is measured with science.
> progress very rapidly in technology over the last few hundred years.
> Unfortunately, there are people who claim to be scientists and claim to
> be doing science when it is not science at all. These people are called
> evolutionists.
Hmmm. Perhaps they should be locked up somewhere.
> They claim that science proves that man evolved from lower-apes. Yet,
> whenever you ask them to prove it, they point to circumstantial
> evidence.
I wonder if you know what the term "circumstantial evidence" means.
> They say look at this fossil here, look at how similar are
> DNA are, look at how similar we are to apes. They never can directly
> prove it. When you ask them to directly prove it, they say "It would
> take millions of years to look at all of the generations. Since I don't
> have a million years, I'm allowed to take shortcuts and show you
Could you please provide an actual reference for your claim.
I'd be particularly interested in actual support of the "Since I ..."
part.
Meanwhile, DNA evidence is taken to examine patterns of
heridity. You can determine if someone is a child of another or
if two people are siblings or half siblings. You can extend this
in ways that can be easily tested against hypothetical relationships.
Why do you think this stops working for more remote ancestral
relationships? Why does it work for working back with dogs or
cattle but not for humans? Why does it work where we have strong
fossil records but not when the fossil record is poor?
I mean, we know how DNA is replicated and what sorts of errors
occur. We know lots about how modern populations are evolving.
Why do you object to extrapolation? Especially why do you object
to extrapolation when there are multiple independent lines of
observations from which to check and calibrate our measurements?
> fossils and bones and the like." Of course, at this point they are
> going against the core law of science, never to accept a claim to be
> true unless one can witness that claim in an experiment or observation.
Do you know what forensic anthropologists observe in fossil bones?
> For instance, I could say, "In ten thousand years, man will evolve into
> a fruits and vegetables. Of course, I can't directly prove it because
> I'm not going to be around ten thousand years into the future, so I
> don't need to give evidence. I'll just make up a story to support my
> hypothesis - mankind is developing technology at a rapid pace. Soon
> we'll develop robots to do everything for us. We'll be sitting down
> most of the time watching TV and posting to internet chat rooms. Soon
> natural selection will take hold and the people who are the most
> successful are the ones with plantlike characteristics, because plants
> don't move. Soon the "green" people will become the majority and will
> develop leaves. Eventually, those who develop fruits or vegetables will
> beat out the trees because they taste better...."
So, you are saying, "I can't be bothered to understand a real
scientific argument so I will simply make fun of a pathetic parody
of one".
OK.
Stuart
cafe...@msn.com wrote:
> Science is a unique in that a scientist only accepts a claim to be true
> if it is possible to witness that claim in an experiment or
> observation. It is a wonderful paradigm which has allowed mankind to
> Unfortunately, there are people who claim to be scientists and claim to
> be doing science when it is not science at all. These people are called
> evolutionists.
>
There is a class of people who think they understand science, because
they read about it once in a comic strip. These witless goobers are
called "creatobabblers".
> They claim that science proves that man evolved from lower-apes. Yet,
> whenever you ask them to prove it, they point to circumstantial
> evidence.
No, they point to "forensic evidence".
Basically you're regurgitating the same, stupid, tired, worn out
creatobabbler chestnut, "Were you there?" type bullshit.
Implicit in such idiocy is the claim that one can't come to solid
conclusions about past events if nobody was there to witness them. Of
course this is nonsense. One can piece togethar past events using clues
found in the present. Paleontology, geology, cosmology are all
"forensic" sciences.
So let me ask you a question.
Should all criminals convicted solely on the basis of forensic
evdidence be released from prison? After all nobody saw them commit
their crimes.
Should we lay off all detectives and close down CSI labs? After all, in
your opinion they are useless.
<rest snipped>
Stuart
Stuart
Stuart
Should criminals convicted solely on the basis of forensic evidence be
released from prison? After all, nobody saw them commit their crimes.
Yes or No.
Stuart
Richard Forrest
There is no such thing as a "lower ape". There are apes. Humans are
apes. This is a matter of classification based on observation.
> giving birth to generations which eventually
> produces a human being?
The evidence from morphology (which is observed in the anatomy of
apes), from genetics (which is derived from observations in the
laboratory), behaviour (which is observed in humans and other apes)
show that homo sapiens is more similar to other apes, in particular to
chimps than to any other taxon. This leads to the hypothesis that we
are related by evolution - something we observe, after all in
everywhere else in the living world.
This hypothesis is tested by the prediction that we should find in the
fossil record forms intermediate between homo sapiens and other apes in
terms of their morphology (which is in general all we can observe in
the fossil record) and genetics (which we can just about figure out
from some relatively recent hominims). The fossil record reveals
hominids with brains intermediate in size between homo and pan, as well
as a host of other morphological features which are as predicted by the
hypothetical relationship.
The observations support the hypothesis.
If you can think of some other hypothesis which is equally well
supported by the evidence (which I have skimmed over in a very cursory
way, but is well-described in the scientific literature) write it up
and submit it to 'Nature'. I'm sure they will be very interested if you
can formulate a sound argument.
If you can't you can't criticise us for sticking with the existing
hypothesis, can you? After all, science does not offer to prove
anything, merely to offer sound interpretations for the evidence.
>
> You can't.
I just did.
> Therefore, evolutionism is a religion, not science.
As I just did, it ain't.
>It
> shouldn't be taught in public school just like intelligent design and
> creationism shouldn't be taught in public school.
Intelligent design is creationism (and if you disagree take it up with
Judge Jones) and creationism is religion. Evolutionary theory isn't, as
I have just demonstrated.
>Let's just teach our
> kids real science that has real-world applications so they will be able
> to compete with the China and India, as I hear their economies are
> evolving fast.
I don't care if you Americans teach your children astrology and crystal
healing as science, so long as you get rid of your nuclear arsenal
first. I'm English.
However, the idea of a scientifically illiterate USA, dominated by
fundamentalists and sitting on the biggest nuclear arsenal in history
is a horifying prospect I would wish to avoid. Your posts show such a
confusion as to the nature of science that I dread the thought that you
are typical of US citizens.
RF
TomS
<1135967504.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bill Hudson stated..."
[...snip...]
>A short list of things science can't directly observe:
>
>- Electrons
>- Continental Drift
>- Stellar evolution
>- Memory storage in the human brain
Creationists might be quite happy to say that the last three of
those are not scientific, either.
What has become the standard example for t.o is:
- The orbit of Pluto (the planet has been observed for less than
100 years, but it takes about 248 years to make one complete orbit
of the sun)
Other examples, which are presumably creationist-resistant
(nothing being creationist-proof):
- The center of the earth
- The far side of the moon, before the year 1959 (the first photographs
taken, by Luna 3)
- The snows of Antarctica, before the year 1820 (the first sighting
of the continent)
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
Raymond Griffith
On 12/30/05 11:52 AM, in article
1135961555.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, "cafe...@msn.com"
<cafe...@msn.com> wrote:
> Science is a unique in that a scientist only accepts a claim to be true
> if it is possible to witness that claim in an experiment or
> observation. It is a wonderful paradigm which has allowed mankind to
> progress very rapidly in technology over the last few hundred years.
> Unfortunately, there are people who claim to be scientists and claim to
> be doing science when it is not science at all. These people are called
> evolutionists.
>
> They claim that science proves that man evolved from lower-apes. Yet,
> whenever you ask them to prove it, they point to circumstantial
> evidence. They say look at this fossil here, look at how similar are
> DNA are, look at how similar we are to apes. They never can directly
> prove it. When you ask them to directly prove it, they say "It would
> take millions of years to look at all of the generations. Since I don't
> have a million years, I'm allowed to take shortcuts and show you
> fossils and bones and the like." Of course, at this point they are
> going against the core law of science, never to accept a claim to be
> true unless one can witness that claim in an experiment or observation.
>
> For instance, I could say, "In ten thousand years, man will evolve into
> a fruits and vegetables. Of course, I can't directly prove it because
> I'm not going to be around ten thousand years into the future, so I
> don't need to give evidence. I'll just make up a story to support my
> hypothesis - mankind is developing technology at a rapid pace. Soon
> we'll develop robots to do everything for us. We'll be sitting down
> most of the time watching TV and posting to internet chat rooms. Soon
> natural selection will take hold and the people who are the most
> successful are the ones with plantlike characteristics, because plants
> don't move. Soon the "green" people will become the majority and will
> develop leaves. Eventually, those who develop fruits or vegetables will
> beat out the trees because they taste better...." Then this theory will
> be supported unanimously by the university professors and they will
> brainwash their 18 year old students into believing this story. Then
> eventually society accepts this as a fact that we will one day become
> fruits and vegetables. And then it will be illegal to teach alternative
> theories like man evolving into a giant robot like the Borg on Star
> Trek in which everyone "will be assimilated".
>
> Anyway, scientists are lying when they say that evolution is a fact.
> It's not. It's just a theory. A fact is something that a person is able
> to directly witness.
>
> Craig
Then I submit that there is no "fact" that the earth orbits the sun, no
"fact" that there is a God, no "fact" that electrons exist, and no "fact"
that you have a brain.
After all, I cannot directly witness that you have one. But from this inane
post full of ignorance, I can attest you are not using one!
Straighten up. Learn something. Quit equating your ignorance with truth or
fact. You may ask questions, but you have no right to make assertions with
your level of non-knowledge.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
>
Raymond Griffith
On 12/30/05 12:13 PM, in article
1135962786.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "cafe...@msn.com"
<cafe...@msn.com> wrote:
> Oh really? I haven't a clue how science works? See the first item
> googled when typing in "scientific method":
> http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
>
> "The scientific method has four steps
> 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
>
> 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics,
> the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
> mathematical relation.
>
> 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
> or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
>
> 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
> independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."
>
> It looks to me like the evolutionists are dodging step 4.
>
> Craig
It doesn't matter how it looks to you. You still don't know -- and
apparently haven't bothered to find out.
And yes, you don't know how science works. You haven't a clue. The fact that
you can google and cut and paste doesn't say a thing about your
understanding.
What said mountains about your ignorance was in your original rant.
I don't know how old you are, but you have a lot to learn. The more you
learn, the more ashamed you will be you ever posted such drivel.
Now, if you want to talk, ask questions, and learn something, we will be
happy to oblige. But for you to bust in with your "ignorance is knowledge"
Orwellianism thinking you can take down the Theory of Evolution with your
pitiful rant shows your thinking skills to be extraordinarily deficient.
Where have you learned morals and ethics? Do you usually go around lying
about others based upon your own prejudice?
I wish for you a year of intense learning.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
>
>
> hbar...@troy.edu wrote:
>> Your opening statement:
>>
>> "Science is a unique in that a scientist only accepts a claim to be
>> true
>> if it is possible to witness that claim in an experiment or
Elf M. Sternberg
And this is different from seeing a commonality of taxonomy and
predicting a commonality of genetics... how? Evolutionary biologists
rely on the same "predictability" as astronomy or geology, two other
sciences that don't have "laboratory results."
If creationists insist that it's only science when guys in lab
coats do it in small rooms lit with flourencent lights then they're
throwing out a lot of sciences, not merely biology.
Elf
Raymond Griffith
On 12/30/05 12:55 PM, in article
1135965313.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, "Richard Forrest"
<ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote:
Not for Codebreaker. Codebreaker will agree with the most idiotic inanity so
long as it attacks science and evolution.
Birds of a feather, these.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
>>
>>> Craig
>
Joe Cummings
>Craig
Hmm. Ah. Well.
I'm going to set up a little experiment for you.
Here's an awkward little boy. You tell him the the plant in
your window is growing. He doesn't believe you.
Prove to him that it is growing.
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
Ye Old One
when s/he wrote:
>Oh really? I haven't a clue how science works? See the first item
>googled when typing in "scientific method":
>http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
>
>"The scientific method has four steps
>1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
>
>2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics,
>the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
>mathematical relation.
>
>3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
>or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
>
>4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
>independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."
>
>It looks to me like the evolutionists are dodging step 4.
>
>Craig
Yes, you don't know how science works.
What you see above is a very simplistic and very selective view of the
scientific process. Take a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_process and you will get an
idea of how varied things are.
--
Bob.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
cafe...@msn.com wrote:
> Science is a unique in that a scientist only accepts a claim to be true
> if it is possible to witness that claim in an experiment or
> observation. It is a wonderful paradigm which has allowed mankind to
> progress very rapidly in technology over the last few hundred years.
> Unfortunately, there are people who claim to be scientists and claim to
> be doing science when it is not science at all. These people are called
> evolutionists.
And yet, all of those people who have developed this technology think
that evolutionary science is good science. Perhaps you should
reconsider this opinion of yours. Is it based on asking a few
scientists what they think, or a sermon you heard in church?
>
> They claim that science proves that man evolved from lower-apes. Yet,
> whenever you ask them to prove it, they point to circumstantial
> evidence. They say look at this fossil here, look at how similar are
> DNA are, look at how similar we are to apes. They never can directly
> prove it. When you ask them to directly prove it, they say "It would
> take millions of years to look at all of the generations. Since I don't
> have a million years, I'm allowed to take shortcuts and show you
> fossils and bones and the like." Of course, at this point they are
> going against the core law of science, never to accept a claim to be
> true unless one can witness that claim in an experiment or observation.
No; the "claim" is an explanation for the evidence at hand, whether it
is observed in the world around us or in the results of laboratory
experiments. Would you deny history because historians cannot reproduce
historical events? Given the evidence for the Roman Empire, what would
you say of someone who thought that classical Rome "was just a theory",
and that it wasn't true because no historian could reproduce it?
The origin of living and extinct species were historical processes, and
they will never be repeated. But we see short-termed processes of that
*type happening now. Longer-termed events take, um, longer. We have
forensic evidence from multiple disciplines which all lead to the same
picture. Genetics, the fossil record, the twin nested hierarchies of
genomes and morphologies, vestigial structures, behavioral sciences,
the association of fossils into recognizable ecosystems, the
association of such extinct ecosystems with continental drift, with the
geological strata, etc. all support a single grand view of the
development of life's variety on Earth. It is the best supported theory
in science.
>
> For instance, I could say,
<snip>
It's clear that you confuse "theory" with "idle speculation". They're
not the same in science. A theory is the best explanation for all the
known facts on a given subject. Of course there are gaps in our
knowledge; there will be for the forseeable future. The question is,
what else explains *all the known facts (re evolution)?
>
> Anyway, scientists are lying when they say that evolution is a fact.
It's a fact as much as gravity is. It is known thru direct and indirect
observation.
> It's not. It's just a theory.
That also. And it explains everything I listed above.
> A fact is something that a person is able
> to directly witness.
Yes. You are welcome to persue the fossils at your local natural
history museum. You are welcome to study radiochemistry, or genetics,
or behavioral studies, or comparative anatomy. You are welcome to ask
questions of anyone who has made a living studying these - some of them
post here regularly. And when you have seen a number of these facts for
yurself, you are welcome to try to find another explanation for them.
At this time, there are no others.
Come back when you have questions. Or come back when you have become an
expert in one of these fields. But don't claim people are liars and
incompetant when you haven't even read a first semester college text
for non-science majors. It's crude, dishonest, and speaks poorly of
your sense of proportion.
Please fell free in this newsgroup to investigate any of these
questions you may have in depth. But if you repeatedly call people
liars and refuse to answer the content of any posts you see here, be
prepared for impatient and frustrated responses.
>
> Craig
Kermit
Dale
news:1135961555.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Science is a unique in that a scientist only accepts a claim to be true
> if it is possible to witness that claim in an experiment or
> observation.
Not familiar with astrophysics, are we?
coast...@gmail.com
required as evidence for the existence of anything. Logical inference
may be employed in order to draw reasonable conclusions from indirect
observations.
A great example of logical inference by indirect observation is the
detection of planets around distant stars. The planets are invisible
against the light of their parent stars. In other words we have never
seen an extra solar planet.
One way to detect extrasolar planets is by the wobble of a star. As
the planet travels around the star they tug on each causing the star to
wobble ever so slightly. But if we can't see the planet how can we see
the wobble? Well in fact we can't! Instead we detect a shift in the
spectrum of light coming from the star caused by the Doppler effect.
Oh dear now we have TWO levels of inference! This must be horribly
inaccurate information, right? In fact the detection of planets is
based on same effect responsible for the upshift and downshift of the
sound of a siren as a firetruck passes you on the street. Doppler
effect is time tested and well understood. As the star moves away from
us its spectrum redshifts. As the star moves toward us its spectrum
blueshifts. From these values we can derive the mass of the planet,
the dynamics of its orbit, and we can even detect multiple planets
orbiting one star.
Richard Forrest
I work in a small lab under fluorescent lights. If I get a white lab
coat, will the creationists think I'm a real scientist?
RF
>
> Elf
Greg G.
Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> cafe...@msn.com wrote:
> > Science is a unique in that a scientist only accepts a claim to be true
> > if it is possible to witness that claim in an experiment or
> > progress very rapidly in technology over the last few hundred years.
> > Unfortunately, there are people who claim to be scientists and claim to
> > be doing science when it is not science at all. These people are called
> > evolutionists.
> >
> > whenever you ask them to prove it, they point to circumstantial
> > evidence. They say look at this fossil here, look at how similar are
> > DNA are, look at how similar we are to apes. They never can directly
> > prove it. When you ask them to directly prove it, they say "It would
> > take millions of years to look at all of the generations. Since I don't
> > have a million years, I'm allowed to take shortcuts and show you
> > fossils and bones and the like." Of course, at this point they are
> > true unless one can witness that claim in an experiment or observation.
> >
> > For instance, I could say, "In ten thousand years, man will evolve into
> > a fruits and vegetables. Of course, I can't directly prove it because
> > I'm not going to be around ten thousand years into the future, so I
> > don't need to give evidence. I'll just make up a story to support my
> > hypothesis - mankind is developing technology at a rapid pace. Soon
> > we'll develop robots to do everything for us. We'll be sitting down
> > most of the time watching TV and posting to internet chat rooms. Soon
> > natural selection will take hold and the people who are the most
> > successful are the ones with plantlike characteristics, because plants
> > don't move. Soon the "green" people will become the majority and will
> > develop leaves. Eventually, those who develop fruits or vegetables will
> > beat out the trees because they taste better...." Then this theory will
> > be supported unanimously by the university professors and they will
> > brainwash their 18 year old students into believing this story. Then
> > eventually society accepts this as a fact that we will one day become
> > fruits and vegetables. And then it will be illegal to teach alternative
> > theories like man evolving into a giant robot like the Borg on Star
> > Trek in which everyone "will be assimilated".
> >
> > to directly witness.
>
>
> Brilliant
CB wears limburger cheese hats to Packers games, too, just like the
commercial.
--
Greg G.
In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as
possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.
--Voltaire 1764
Robert J. Kolker
> sciences that don't have "laboratory results."
>
> If creationists insist that it's only science when guys in lab
> coats do it in small rooms lit with flourencent lights then they're
> throwing out a lot of sciences, not merely biology.
Which was the point of what I said. Astronomy is just as empircal and
capable of controlled observation as is any other science. Passive
observation has lead to hypothesis which can be actively checked. So
Astronomy and geology are essentially the same as any other empircally
based science. Theories are falsified by refuted predictions.
In geology it was believed that the continents did not move. Evidence
supporting plate tektonics put an end to that.
Bob Kolker
john.1...@gmail.com
cafe...@msn.com wrote:
> Science is a unique in that a scientist only accepts a claim to be true
> if it is possible to witness that claim in an experiment or
> observation.
In science experiments and observations need only deal with evidence
that can be studied in a repeatable manner. Most scientific evidence
is
indirect, and really has nothing to do with "witnesses". An "observer"
is not a "witness".
> It is a wonderful paradigm which has allowed mankind to
> progress very rapidly in technology over the last few hundred years.
They aren't talking about you, Pal.
> Unfortunately, there are people who claim to be scientists and claim to
> be doing science when it is not science at all. These people are called
> evolutionists.
Ah, no. You mean 'creationists' and so-called "intelligent design
theorists".
>
> They claim that science proves that man evolved from lower-apes. Yet,
> whenever you ask them to prove it, they point to circumstantial
> evidence. They say look at this fossil here, look at how similar are
> DNA are, look at how similar we are to apes. They never can directly
> prove it.
Scientific theories are not 'proven'. All of biology appears to be the
result
of common descent. Comparative DNA studies show that this appearence
exists at the molecular level. The counter argument would be an
argument
of 'separate' descent, yet, the fossil record and DNA both are
consistent with
common descent and inconsistent with separate descent.
> When you ask them to directly prove it, they say "It would
> take millions of years to look at all of the generations. Since I don't
> have a million years, I'm allowed to take shortcuts and show you
> fossils and bones and the like." Of course, at this point they are
> going against the core law of science, never to accept a claim to be
> true unless one can witness that claim in an experiment or observation.
In science, the available data determines what is, and what is not
acceptable
for testing theories. What *is* available is quite plentiful and quite
powerfullly
in support of the notion of common descent.
>
> For instance, I could say, "In ten thousand years, man will evolve into
> a fruits and vegetables. Of course, I can't directly prove it because
> I'm not going to be around ten thousand years into the future, so I
> don't need to give evidence. I'll just make up a story to support my
> hypothesis - mankind is developing technology at a rapid pace. Soon
> we'll develop robots to do everything for us. We'll be sitting down
> most of the time watching TV and posting to internet chat rooms. Soon
> natural selection will take hold and the people who are the most
> successful are the ones with plantlike characteristics, because plants
> don't move. Soon the "green" people will become the majority and will
> develop leaves. Eventually, those who develop fruits or vegetables will
> beat out the trees because they taste better...." Then this theory will
> be supported unanimously by the university professors and they will
> brainwash their 18 year old students into believing this story. Then
> eventually society accepts this as a fact that we will one day become
> fruits and vegetables. And then it will be illegal to teach alternative
> theories like man evolving into a giant robot like the Borg on Star
> Trek in which everyone "will be assimilated".
Actually, by the theory of evolution we know that it is impossible for
plants
to be descended from humans. We do know that plants and humans share
common
ancestry, though.
>
> Anyway, scientists are lying when they say that evolution is a fact.
> It's not. It's just a theory. A fact is something that a person is able
> to directly witness.
A "fact" is anything we observe, whether direct or indirect. Evolution
is
best called a "phenomenon" in that we have major lines of evidence for
believing the idea. Those lines consist of
1) the law of taxonomy
2) the law of faunal succession
3) observed change in allele frequency
A number of speciation events have been observed, and there is a brand
new science
of evolutionary developmental biology (evo devo), based on observations
of the
operation of homeobox genes that may do much to help us understand how
big
changes occurred.
>
> Craig
-John
John Stockwell | jo...@dix.Mines.EDU
Center for Wave Phenomena (The Home of Seismic Un*x)
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, CO 80401 | http://www.cwp.mines.edu/cwpcodes
voice: (303) 273-3049
Our book:
Norman Bleistein, Jack K. Cohen, John W. Stockwell Jr., [2001],
Mathematics of multidimensional seismic imaging, migration, and
inversion,
(Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics, V. 13.), Springer-Verlag, New
York.
Mike Dworetsky
news:1135967504.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > Oh really? I haven't a clue how science works? See the first item
> > > > googled when typing in "scientific method":
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "The scientific method has four steps
> > > > 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of
phenomena.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In
physics,
> > > > the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
> > > > mathematical relation.
> > > >
> > > > 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other
phenomena,
> > > > or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
> > > >
> > > > 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
> > > > independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."
> > >
> > > way .Just because it's a page on the internet doesn't make it
> > > authoritative.
> > >
> > > This one seems rather better:
> > >
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000
> > >
> > > # 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
> > > # 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is
> > > consistent with what you have observed.
> > > # 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
> > > # 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and
> > > modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
> > > # 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between
> > > theory and experiment and/or observation.
> > >
> > > Many branches of science, most notably astronomy, rely on observation
> > > far more than experiment as your source suggests. Or perhaps you are
> > > going to tell us that astronomy is not a science.
> > >
> > > Next time you want to find out about the nature of science, or
> > > scientific matters in general, why not ask a scientist? Many
scientists
> > > post on this forum, incidentally.
> > >
> > > RF
> >
> > OK, your description mentioned "observations" while the first one that
> > I googled mentioned only "experiments". Fine. Now tell me, how can I
> > produces a human being?
> >
> > You can't. Therefore, evolutionism is a religion, not science. It
> > shouldn't be taught in public school just like intelligent design and
> > kids real science that has real-world applications so they will be able
> > to compete with the China and India, as I hear their economies are
> > evolving fast.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It looks to me like the evolutionists are dodging step 4.
> > > >
> > > > Craig
> > > >
> > > >
be
> > > > > true
> > > > > if it is possible to witness that claim in an experiment or
> > > > > observation"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > HB
>
> A short list of things science can't directly observe:
>
> - Electrons
> - Continental Drift
This has been directly observed for at least a decade, using GPS satellite
and LAGEOS satellite system. Also can be measured by observing distant
quasars with intercontinental radio astronomy interferometry. In both
cases, you can detect the actual motions of the continents N America and
Europe as they separate.
> - Stellar evolution
The colour-magnitude diagrams of star clusters fit theoretical predictions
of stellar structure and evolution calculations so well that this could be
reasonably said to be a direct observation.
More direct observations are difficult because of the time scales involved,
but the following are directly observed examples of stellar evolution: FG
Sagittae, a star whose surface has been altered in composition over several
decades as nucleosynthesis products from the interior appear at the surface
through convective mixing; Sakurai's object, a star undergoing a helium
flash in its interior (for a detailed source, Google "Sakurai's Object" or
go to http://www.astro.keele.ac.uk/sakurai/ and follow links).
> - Memory storage in the human brain
>
Not yet directly observed (it isn't clear that it can be observed) but there
is a lot of work in neurology and brain function with new techniques that
may allow understanding of this soon.
In any event, the point is that you can use the theory of evolution to
predict that, for example, intermediate fossils in the whale and horse
sequence should be found, and indeed they are. You don't actually have to
sit around for millions of years taking photographs to make such an
observation.
A good example of an observation that could falsify the modern synthesis (or
at least cause a lot of head scratching) would be finding the fossil of a
rabbit in the Ediacaran limestone. But no such thing has ever been found,
and I predict that it never will be.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
al
"Richard Forrest" <ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1135964917.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Craig
> >
> >
> > hbar...@troy.edu wrote:
> > > Your opening statement:
> > >
> > > "Science is a unique in that a scientist only accepts a claim to be
> > > true
> > > if it is possible to witness that claim in an experiment or
> > > observation"
> > >
> > > Shows that you haven't a clue how science works.
We all look to RF to show us how science works.
You dodge the naughty questions and take the piss out of his spelling and
grammar.
> > >
> > > HB
>
al
> if it is possible to witness that claim in an experiment or
> progress very rapidly in technology over the last few hundred years.
> be doing science when it is not science at all. These people are called
> evolutionists.
>
> whenever you ask them to prove it, they point to circumstantial
> evidence. They say look at this fossil here, look at how similar are
> DNA are, look at how similar we are to apes. They never can directly
> take millions of years to look at all of the generations. Since I don't
> have a million years, I'm allowed to take shortcuts and show you
> fossils and bones and the like." Of course, at this point they are
> true unless one can witness that claim in an experiment or observation.
>
> For instance, I could say, "In ten thousand years, man will evolve into
> a fruits and vegetables. Of course, I can't directly prove it because
> I'm not going to be around ten thousand years into the future, so I
> don't need to give evidence. I'll just make up a story to support my
> hypothesis - mankind is developing technology at a rapid pace. Soon
> we'll develop robots to do everything for us. We'll be sitting down
> most of the time watching TV and posting to internet chat rooms. Soon
> natural selection will take hold and the people who are the most
> successful are the ones with plantlike characteristics, because plants
> don't move. Soon the "green" people will become the majority and will
> develop leaves. Eventually, those who develop fruits or vegetables will
> beat out the trees because they taste better...." Then this theory will
> be supported unanimously by the university professors and they will
> brainwash their 18 year old students into believing this story. Then
> eventually society accepts this as a fact that we will one day become
> fruits and vegetables. And then it will be illegal to teach alternative
> theories like man evolving into a giant robot like the Borg on Star
> Trek in which everyone "will be assimilated".
>
> It's not. It's just a theory. A fact is something that a person is able
> to directly witness.
>
Excellent
al
>
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> This has been directly observed for at least a decade, using GPS satellite
> and LAGEOS satellite system.
GPS movement determinations are inferential. They are inferred from
corrections determined by the theory of relativity. Any GPS
determination is indirect and inferential.
Bob Kolker
John Drayton
> OK, your description mentioned "observations" while the first one that
> I googled mentioned only "experiments". Fine. Now tell me, how can I
> "observe" a lower ape giving birth to generations which eventually
> produces a human being?
You first statement was:
"Science is a unique in that a scientist only accepts a
claim to be true if it is possible to witness that claim
in an experiment or observation."
Your subsequent cut and paste talked about:
"Performance of experimental tests of the predictions"
There's a difference between witnessing a claim and
witnessing the concequences/predictions of a claim.
You don't seem to have distinguished between the two.
I don't thing anyone has witnessed mass becoming
energy. Predictions relating to the relationship between
mass and energy have been made ansd verified, though.
I guess you can come here for a number of reasons: to
exchange knowledge, learn, teach, discover.
Or just come for a battle, because you already know
everything.
If you're here for the second, you'll have to make sure
you don't actually try to understand what people post,
or engage in clam reasoned discussions.
That's the only way to stay a creationist here.
I see you're well on the way.
<snip>
--
John Drayton
NashtOn
> cafe...@msn.com wrote:
>
>>Oh really? I haven't a clue how science works? See the first item
>>googled when typing in "scientific method":
>>
>>"The scientific method has four steps
>>1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
>>
>>2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics,
>>the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
>>mathematical relation.
>>
>>3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
>>or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
>>
>>4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
>>independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."
>>
>>
>>Craig
>>
>
>
> geology, as they don't exactly rely on laboratory experiments either.
>
When you ever graduate from highschool, you will find out that there is
such a thing as observatories.
Nicola
NashtOn
> cafe...@msn.com wrote:
>
>
>>Oh really? I haven't a clue how science works? See the first item
>>googled when typing in "scientific method":
>>http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
>>
>>"The scientific method has four steps
>>1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
>>
>>2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics,
>>the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
>>mathematical relation.
>>
>>3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
>>or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
>>
>>4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
>>independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."
>>
>>It looks to me like the evolutionists are dodging step 4.
>
>
> to you. You haven't had a single thought of your own in years, have you?
>
> CT
>
Oh-oh, here come the ad homs from the clueless.
Nicola
NashtOn
> cafe...@msn.com wrote:
>
>>4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
>>independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."
>>
>>It looks to me like the evolutionists are dodging step 4.
>
>
> in Korea was caught in a lie.
>
> Genetics and Molecular Biology are very well supported by overlapping
> experiments. There is usually more than one experimental strategy to
> support a hypothesis.
>
> Bob Kolker
>
How manytimes will you have to be told Kolker, that genetics and m.
biology=/=ToE?
Holy crud you people are thick.
Nicola
NashtOn
> cafe...@msn.com wrote:
>
>>Oh really? I haven't a clue how science works? See the first item
>>googled when typing in "scientific method":
>
>
>
>>
>>"The scientific method has four steps
>>1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
>>
>>2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics,
>>the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
>>mathematical relation.
>>
>>3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
>>or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
>>
>>independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."
>
>
> way .Just because it's a page on the internet doesn't make it
> authoritative.
>
> This one seems rather better:
> http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000
>
> # 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
Nothing to predict. What is in fact predicted by the ToE is its own
assumptions.
> # 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is
> consistent with what you have observed.
What has been observed? Anybody seen a species morph into another recently?
It's all speculation, fed by wishful thinking with sprinkles of circular
arguments.
> # 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
What does the useless ToE predict? That G_d doesn't exist, right? isn't
it its leitmotiv?
> # 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and
> modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
In the case of the ToE, come up with something even more idiotic to fit
the Cambrian explosion.
> # 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between
> theory and experiment and/or observation.
You forgot: Teach young people that it is a fact, with no controversies,
from a very young age and you get the people that post in here.
>
> Many branches of science, most notably astronomy, rely on observation
> far more than experiment as your source suggests. Or perhaps you are
> going to tell us that astronomy is not a science.
Nothing to observe but the assumption that similarities/differences in
the genome of different species arise from common decent.
Very few fossils to shake a stick at and yet, the ToE is a "fact."
>
> Next time you want to find out about the nature of science, or
> scientific matters in general, why not ask a scientist? Many scientists
> post on this forum, incidentally.
Many clueless people post here also,like the fellow that disputed
Stalin's Great Purge.
Nicolas
>
> RF
>
>
>>It looks to me like the evolutionists are dodging step 4.
>>
>>Craig
>>
>>
>>hbar...@troy.edu wrote:
>>
>>>Your opening statement:
>>>
>>>"Science is a unique in that a scientist only accepts a claim to be
>>>true
>>>if it is possible to witness that claim in an experiment or
>>>observation"
>>>
>>>Shows that you haven't a clue how science works.
>>>
>>>HB
>
>
NashtOn
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
>>cafe...@msn.com wrote:
>>
>>>Oh really? I haven't a clue how science works? See the first item
>>>googled when typing in "scientific method":
>>
>>It's a pity you didn't look for this before making your initial post.
>>
>>
>>>http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
>>>
>>>"The scientific method has four steps
>>>1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
>>>
>>>2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics,
>>>the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
>>>mathematical relation.
>>>
>>>3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
>>>or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
>>>
>>>4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
>>>independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."
>>
>>This is not a very good description of the scientific method, by the
>>way .Just because it's a page on the internet doesn't make it
>>authoritative.
>>
>>This one seems rather better:
>>http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000
>>
>># 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
>>consistent with what you have observed.
>>modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
>>theory and experiment and/or observation.
>>
>>far more than experiment as your source suggests. Or perhaps you are
>>going to tell us that astronomy is not a science.
>>
>>scientific matters in general, why not ask a scientist? Many scientists
>>post on this forum, incidentally.
>>
>
>
> OK, your description mentioned "observations" while the first one that
> I googled mentioned only "experiments". Fine. Now tell me, how can I
> "observe" a lower ape giving birth to generations which eventually
> produces a human being?
>
> shouldn't be taught in public school just like intelligent design and
> creationism shouldn't be taught in public school. Let's just teach our
> kids real science that has real-world applications so they will be able
> to compete with the China and India, as I hear their economies are
> evolving fast.
>
> Craig
Well said.
Agreed. As I've demonstrated on many occasions, the ToE is completely,
utterly and definitely *useless*.
Nicolas
NashtOn
> cafei...@msn.com wrote:
>
>>OK, your description mentioned "observations" while the first one that
>>I googled mentioned only "experiments". Fine. Now tell me, how can I
>>"observe" a lower ape giving birth to generations which eventually
>>produces a human being?
>>
>>You can't. Therefore, evolutionism is a religion, not science
>
>
> not moving, lying in a pool of blood, and a bullet is found within
> them, you are claiming I can't prove that person was shot because I
> didn't "observe" the shooting.
The analogy is flawed It would go more like: Many people being killed by
random bullets would actually produce a species more complex than modern
man.
> Forensic evidence (such as that used to understand history) is *more
> reliable* than eye-witness testimony because it can be verified by
> independent parties. If I had a video tape (a long one) of earlier
> apes evolving into humans, how would you be able to prove I didn't
> falsify the tape? If I had watched it occur and told you about it, how
> would you know if I was telling the truth? On the other hand, if I
> give you access to the physical evidence (which is plentiful) you can
> do your own tests to verify mine.
Forensic evidence is excellent.Too bad the ToE lacks it sorely. You dug
yourself in this hole.
Nicolas
> Lee Jay
>
NashtOn
> cafe...@msn.com wrote:
>
>
>>... tell me, how can I
>>"observe" a lower ape giving birth to generations which eventually
>>produces a human being?
>>
>>shouldn't be taught in public school just like intelligent design and
>>creationism shouldn't be taught in public school.
>
>
> Holy War on Reason?), but let's go with it for a minute: If we
> shouldn't teach science or religion, what do you propose we should teach?
>
> Is the Discovery Institute cloning morons? There can't really be this
> many...
>
> CT
>
And the cultists come up with more corny ad homs.
The real scientists in here must be proud to have these clowns on their
side.
OTOH,you need all the help you can get.
Nicola
David Fritzinger
And, how many times do you have to be told that genetics and molecular
biology support the ToE, and its predictions. Such as the increasing
relatedness of gene sequences as organisms are more similar
morphologically, or the fact that all organisms have many genes in
common.
As a troll, you get a 0.5 (of 10)
>
> Holy crud you people are thick.
You were looking in the mirror when you typed that, right?
BTW, Nicky. It appears you have a lot of time on your hands right now.
Why don't you spend some of that time learning something about the ToE
(the real Toe, that is, not your strawman impression of it)?
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
Frank Sullivan
cafe...@msn.com wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
> > cafe...@msn.com wrote:
> > > Oh really? I haven't a clue how science works? See the first item
> > > googled when typing in "scientific method":
> > It's a pity you didn't look for this before making your initial post.
> >
> > > http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
> > >
> > > "The scientific method has four steps
> > > 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
> > >
> > > 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics,
> > > the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
> > > mathematical relation.
> > >
> > > 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
> > > or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
> > >
> > > independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."
> >
> > way .Just because it's a page on the internet doesn't make it
> > authoritative.
> >
> > This one seems rather better:
> > http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000
> >
> > # 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
> > # 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is
> > consistent with what you have observed.
> > # 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
> > # 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and
> > modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
> > # 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between
> > theory and experiment and/or observation.
> >
> > Many branches of science, most notably astronomy, rely on observation
> > far more than experiment as your source suggests. Or perhaps you are
> > going to tell us that astronomy is not a science.
> >
> > Next time you want to find out about the nature of science, or
> > scientific matters in general, why not ask a scientist? Many scientists
> > post on this forum, incidentally.
> >
> > RF
>
> "observe" a lower ape giving birth to generations which eventually
> produces a human being?
>
> You can't. Therefore, evolutionism is a religion, not science. It
> shouldn't be taught in public school just like intelligent design and
> kids real science that has real-world applications so they will be able
> to compete with the China and India, as I hear their economies are
> evolving fast.
What if our genome and the chimpanzee genome shared certain genetic
markers that could only be explained through common ancestry? Would you
consider that compelling evidence that they do, in fact, share a common
ancestor?
P.S. I'm not yet suggesting that such a thing has been found; this is
purely hypothetical for now.
> Craig
>
> >
> > >
> > > It looks to me like the evolutionists are dodging step 4.
> > >
John Drayton
<snip>
> How manytimes will you have to be told Kolker, that genetics and m.
> biology=/=ToE?
>
> Holy crud you people are thick.
>
> Nicola
I guess this is what you meant when you earlier in the
thread you said:
"Oh-oh, here come the ad homs from the clueless."
So you are *sometimes* right.
--
John Drayton
maff
cafe...@msn.com wrote:
> Science is a unique in that a scientist only accepts a claim to be true
> if it is possible to witness that claim in an experiment or
> progress very rapidly in technology over the last few hundred years.
> Unfortunately, there are people who claim to be scientists and claim to
> be doing science when it is not science at all. These people are called
> evolutionists.
>
Why People Accept Evolution --> Because it fits the scientific
observations!
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.politics/msg/2f3f8113503320b8
John Drayton
<snip>
> or engage in clam reasoned discussions.
Actually, I prefer discussing mussells and pippis, but will
talk about pretty much any mollusc ...
--
John Drayton
wf3...@comcast.net
>Richard Forrest wrote:
>>
>> # 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
>
>Nothing to predict. What is in fact predicted by the ToE is its own
>assumptions.
gee...darwin predicted transitional forms...and we find those in the
fossil record
>
>> # 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is
>> consistent with what you have observed.
>
>What has been observed? Anybody seen a species morph into another recently?
actually, yes. the speciation of mosquitoes in the london subway has
been observed.
>
>> # 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
>
>What does the useless ToE predict? That G_d doesn't exist, right? isn't
>it its leitmotiv?
ROFLMAO!! never seen that in a science journal. perhaps the
creationist can tell us where we can see that journal reference.
>
>
>> # 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between
>> theory and experiment and/or observation.
>
>You forgot: Teach young people that it is a fact, with no controversies,
>from a very young age and you get the people that post in here.
gee. every science has controversies. that's why science still exists.
oh. nasht doesn't do science. he's a creationist.
that's what's got him confused.
>
>>
>> Many branches of science, most notably astronomy, rely on observation
>> far more than experiment as your source suggests. Or perhaps you are
>> going to tell us that astronomy is not a science.
>
>Nothing to observe but the assumption that similarities/differences in
>the genome of different species arise from common decent.
>
>Very few fossils to shake a stick at and yet, the ToE is a "fact."
ROFLMAO!! even HE admits that they exist yet he denies they exist.!!
>
Radix2
NashtOn wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
<snip>
>
> > # 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
>
> What does the useless ToE predict? That G_d doesn't exist, right? isn't
> it its leitmotiv?
>
And there we have it. Nashton's weak faith is the reason why he
despises evolution, despite the fact that it does and is nothing of the
sort.
Roger Tang
Kinda obvious. That's the hallmark of the anti-evolutionary. That kind
of sin leads to lying, spirital arrogance, abuse of others, and all
sorts of anti-Christian behavior.
All because they're listening to themselves and not God.
--
oi...@porkfilled.com
Producer, Porkfilled Players (www.porkfilled.com)
NashtOn
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:14:48 GMT, NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Richard Forrest wrote:
>
>
>>># 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
>>
>>Nothing to predict. What is in fact predicted by the ToE is its own
>>assumptions.
>
>
> gee...darwin predicted transitional forms...and we find those in the
> fossil record
We have very few "transitional" fossils.
Do you think there would be a discussion about this if this were the case?
>
>
>>># 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is
>>>consistent with what you have observed.
>>
>>What has been observed? Anybody seen a species morph into another recently?
>
>
> actually, yes. the speciation of mosquitoes in the london subway has
> been observed.
References,please.
>
>
>>># 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
>>
>>What does the useless ToE predict? That G_d doesn't exist, right? isn't
>>it its leitmotiv?
>
>
> ROFLMAO!! never seen that in a science journal. perhaps the
> creationist can tell us where we can see that journal reference.
Don't break a bone falling off a chair.
>
>
>>
>>># 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between
>>>theory and experiment and/or observation.
>>
>>You forgot: Teach young people that it is a fact, with no controversies,
>
>>from a very young age and you get the people that post in here.
>
> gee. every science has controversies. that's why science still exists.
None that pits the Creator against naturalistic randomness and the lie
of increasing complexity.
>
> oh. nasht doesn't do science. he's a creationist.
>
> that's what's got him confused.
Stick with the arguments. What's wrong, not sure they're valid so you're
resorting to childish crap?
Be a man.
>
>>>Many branches of science, most notably astronomy, rely on observation
>>>far more than experiment as your source suggests. Or perhaps you are
>>>going to tell us that astronomy is not a science.
>>
>>Nothing to observe but the assumption that similarities/differences in
>>the genome of different species arise from common decent.
>>
>>Very few fossils to shake a stick at and yet, the ToE is a "fact."
>
>
> ROFLMAO!! even HE admits that they exist yet he denies they exist.!!
I never denied fossils exist. time to brush up your reading
comprehension, buddy.
Nicolas
>
>
>
NashtOn
Watson, *not* Wilson.
Nicola
Rodjk #613
NashtOn wrote:
> wf3...@comcast.net wrote:
> > On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:14:48 GMT, NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Richard Forrest wrote:
> >
> >
> >>># 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
> >>
> >>Nothing to predict. What is in fact predicted by the ToE is its own
> >>assumptions.
> >
> >
> > gee...darwin predicted transitional forms...and we find those in the
> > fossil record
>
> We have very few "transitional" fossils.
How many are needed?
>
> Do you think there would be a discussion about this if this were the case?
There would be no discussion if people spent time actually learning the
science instead of listening to preachers and watching tv...
Rodjk #613
>
<SNIP>
> Nicolas
> >
> >
> >
Ross Langerak
<cafe...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1135962786.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Oh really? I haven't a clue how science works? See the first item
> googled when typing in "scientific method":
>
> "The scientific method has four steps
> 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
>
> 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics,
> the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
> mathematical relation.
>
> 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
> or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
>
> 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
> independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."
>
>
> Craig
>
The scientific method is a four step cyclic method.
Step 1 is data. Data is the result of observation and experimentation.
Step 2 is a theory. A theory is an explanation for a set of data.
Step 3 is an hypothesis. In science, an hypothesis is a specific prediction
based upon a theory.
Step 4 is an experiment. The experiment directly tests the hypothesis. The
result is more data, which returns us to step 1.
Evolution is a scientific theory because it explains the available data.
Evidence from the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and biochemistry all
support evolution. Most of this evidence was unavailable at the time Darwin
formulated the theory of evolution. As a result of evolution, we expect new
fossils to fall into certain patterns. Each time species are compared,
either through their anatomy or their biochemistry, we expect them to fall
into certain patterns. Each time this happens, it provides additional
support for evolution.
Stuart
NashtOn wrote:
> wf3...@comcast.net wrote:
> > On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:14:48 GMT, NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Richard Forrest wrote:
> >
> >
> >>># 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
> >>
> >>Nothing to predict. What is in fact predicted by the ToE is its own
> >>assumptions.
> >
> >
> > gee...darwin predicted transitional forms...and we find those in the
> > fossil record
>
> We have very few "transitional" fossils.
Several thousand is more than a few.
And, creationism has no explanation for even one transitional fossil.
Stuart
Stuart
NashtOn wrote:
> Lee Jay wrote:
> > cafei...@msn.com wrote:
> >
> >>OK, your description mentioned "observations" while the first one that
> >>I googled mentioned only "experiments". Fine. Now tell me, how can I
> >>"observe" a lower ape giving birth to generations which eventually
> >>produces a human being?
> >>
> >>You can't. Therefore, evolutionism is a religion, not science
> >
> >
> > Oh please. If I take you to a home and inside you find a person who is
> > not moving, lying in a pool of blood, and a bullet is found within
> > them, you are claiming I can't prove that person was shot because I
> > didn't "observe" the shooting.
> The analogy is flawed It would go more like: Many people being killed by
> random bullets would actually produce a species more complex than modern
> man.
>
That analogy is a non-sequiter to the issue raised. The issue here, is
whether or not one can draw firm conclusions as to an event that
occurred in the past using clues found in the present.
Having said that, your anology makes no sense in any context in which
evolutionary biology is a consideration.
THere is no selection if people are shot at random with out regard to
fitness.
Apparently, you're too stupid to master even basic concepts in
evolutionary biology.
Stuart
Ross Langerak
<cafe...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1135966416.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > googled when typing in "scientific method":
> >
> > >
> > > "The scientific method has four steps
> > > 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
> > >
> > > 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics,
> > > the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
> > > mathematical relation.
> > >
> > > 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
> > > or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
> > >
> > > 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
> > > independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."
> >
> > way .Just because it's a page on the internet doesn't make it
> > authoritative.
> >
> > This one seems rather better:
> >
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION0212100000
0000000000
> >
> > consistent with what you have observed.
> > modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
> > theory and experiment and/or observation.
> >
> > far more than experiment as your source suggests. Or perhaps you are
> > going to tell us that astronomy is not a science.
> >
> > scientific matters in general, why not ask a scientist? Many scientists
> > post on this forum, incidentally.
> >
> > RF
>
> I googled mentioned only "experiments". Fine. Now tell me, how can I
> "observe" a lower ape giving birth to generations which eventually
> produces a human being?
>
> shouldn't be taught in public school just like intelligent design and
> creationism shouldn't be taught in public school. Let's just teach our
> kids real science that has real-world applications so they will be able
> to compete with the China and India, as I hear their economies are
> evolving fast.
>
>
A scientific theory is responsible for explaining the "existing" data. It
is not responsible for explaining evidence that is not available. We can't
go back and watch as human evolution progressed over the last five million
years. The process did, however, leave evidence: in our anatomy, in our
biochemistry, and in the fossil record. That is the evidence that evolution
is responsible for explaining. Evolution is a valid scientific theory
because it explains the available evidence.
wf3...@comcast.net
>wf3...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:14:48 GMT, NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Richard Forrest wrote:
>>
>>
>>>># 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
>>>
>>>Nothing to predict. What is in fact predicted by the ToE is its own
>>>assumptions.
>>
>>
>> gee...darwin predicted transitional forms...and we find those in the
>> fossil record
>
>We have very few "transitional" fossils.
one is enough, sport. thanks for playing
>
>Do you think there would be a discussion about this if this were the case?
you tried this line of argument before. it's as valid as saying that,
because the KKK talks about blacks, there's a problem with blacks.
creationism is wrong. get over it.
>
>>
>>>># 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is
>>>>consistent with what you have observed.
>>>
>>>What has been observed? Anybody seen a species morph into another recently?
>>
>>
>> actually, yes. the speciation of mosquitoes in the london subway has
>> been observed.
>
>References,please.
have you read the talk.,origins info about the speciation of
mosquitoes in the london subway?
oh. you havent.
>
>>
>>
>>>># 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
>>>
>>>What does the useless ToE predict? That G_d doesn't exist, right? isn't
>>>it its leitmotiv?
>>
>>
>> ROFLMAO!! never seen that in a science journal. perhaps the
>> creationist can tell us where we can see that journal reference.
>
>Don't break a bone falling off a chair.
oh. you have no reference to back up your assertion
yeah. thanks. i already knew that.
>>>
>>>># 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between
>>>>theory and experiment and/or observation.
>>>
>>>You forgot: Teach young people that it is a fact, with no controversies,
>>
>>>from a very young age and you get the people that post in here.
>>
>> gee. every science has controversies. that's why science still exists.
>
>None that pits the Creator against naturalistic randomness and the lie
>of increasing complexity.
reference that evolutoin pits the creator against natural randomness?
oh. none.
thanks again...
>>
>> oh. nasht doesn't do science. he's a creationist.
>>
>> that's what's got him confused.
>
>Stick with the arguments. What's wrong, not sure they're valid so you're
>resorting to childish crap?
arguments? you present arguments? really? since when does 'i said it
so it must be so' count as an argument?
>
>Be a man.
ROFLMAO!! being a man means not being afraid of the truth
and your diaper is permanently wet.
>
>
>>
>>>>Many branches of science, most notably astronomy, rely on observation
>>>>far more than experiment as your source suggests. Or perhaps you are
>>>>going to tell us that astronomy is not a science.
>>>
>>>Nothing to observe but the assumption that similarities/differences in
>>>the genome of different species arise from common decent.
>>>
>>>Very few fossils to shake a stick at and yet, the ToE is a "fact."
>>
>>
>> ROFLMAO!! even HE admits that they exist yet he denies they exist.!!
>
>I never denied fossils exist. time to brush up your reading
>comprehension, buddy.
you dont read your own arguments. there are millions of fossils.
diatoms for example...so you're arguing against the existence of
transitional which you admit exist.
thanks again, creationist...
>
Jesus H Christ
nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca:
>>
>> Then it's safe to assume you have problems with much of astronomy and
>> geology, as they don't exactly rely on laboratory experiments either.
>>
>
> When you ever graduate from highschool, you will find out that there is
> such a thing as observatories.
Now that has to be one of the most stupefyingly dumb-fuck posts I've seen
out of his mouth YET.
> Nicola
Completely fucking oblivious to whats ACTUALLY being discussed and shoots
his wad off in the wrong direction. What a tosser.
jesus!
Jesus H Christ
news:Q5ktf.147485$Ph4.4...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca:
> cafe...@msn.com wrote:
<snip fundie delusional rantings>
>>
>> Craig
>
> Well said.
>
> Agreed. As I've demonstrated on many occasions,
You haven't *demonstrated* jack shit, fucktard.
> the ToE is completely,
> utterly and definitely *useless*.
Well, the editors of SCIENCE beg to disagree.
And since they're informed scientists and you're just another religious
net kook, my bet's with SCIENCE, asshat.
Wash my feet, fundie!
jesus!
Stuart
NashtOn wrote:
> John Bode wrote:
> > cafe...@msn.com wrote:
> >
> >>Oh really? I haven't a clue how science works? See the first item
> >>googled when typing in "scientific method":
> >>
> >>"The scientific method has four steps
> >>1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
> >>
> >>2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics,
> >>the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
> >>mathematical relation.
> >>
> >>3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
> >>or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
> >>
> >>4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
> >>independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."
> >>
> >>
> >>Craig
> >>
> >
> >
> > geology, as they don't exactly rely on laboratory experiments either.
> >
>
> When you ever graduate from highschool, you will find out that there is
> such a thing as observatories.
>
Good. Perhaps you can list all of the Big Bang Lab Experiments
Stuart
VoiceOfReason
Jesus H Christ wrote:
> NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote in news:sYjtf.147477$Ph4.4503029@ursa-
> nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca:
> >>
> >> Then it's safe to assume you have problems with much of astronomy and
> >> geology, as they don't exactly rely on laboratory experiments either.
> >>
> >
> > When you ever graduate from highschool, you will find out that there is
> > such a thing as observatories.
>
> Now that has to be one of the most stupefyingly dumb-fuck posts I've seen
> out of his mouth YET.
Even better - only a minute after he posted this, he was criticizing
someone else's use of an ad-hom. So "hypocritical dumb-fuck" would be
more accurate.
> > Nicola
>
> Completely fucking oblivious to whats ACTUALLY being discussed and shoots
> his wad off in the wrong direction. What a tosser.
Yeah - it's pretty obvious Nicky doesn't have both paddles in the
water.
Radix2
Yep. I know this. Why do you have to keep reminding yourself? It
certainly does nothing for me.
Ross Langerak
"NashtOn" <na...@na.ca> wrote in message
news:cCltf.147526$Ph4.4...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> wf3...@comcast.net wrote:
> > On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:14:48 GMT, NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Richard Forrest wrote:
> >
> >
> >>># 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
> >>
> >>Nothing to predict. What is in fact predicted by the ToE is its own
> >>assumptions.
> >
> >
> > gee...darwin predicted transitional forms...and we find those in the
> > fossil record
>
> We have very few "transitional" fossils.
>
> Do you think there would be a discussion about this if this were the case?
Yes, there would, because creationists are ignorant of the evidence. Many
creationists claim that there are no transitional fossil, yet you can find
an extensive list here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Those fossils exist, and ignoring them doesn't make them go away.
[snip]
Phil.
NashtOn wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
> >
> >>Oh really? I haven't a clue how science works? See the first item
> >>googled when typing in "scientific method":
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>"The scientific method has four steps
> >>1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
> >>
> >>2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics,
> >>the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
> >>mathematical relation.
> >>
> >>3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
> >>or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
> >>
> >>4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
> >>independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."
> >
> >
> > way .Just because it's a page on the internet doesn't make it
> > authoritative.
> >
> > This one seems rather better:
> > http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000
> >
>
> Nothing to predict. What is in fact predicted by the ToE is its own
> assumptions.
>
> > consistent with what you have observed.
>
> What has been observed? Anybody seen a species morph into another recently?
> arguments.
Talking about circular, check out this example of speciation and its
explanation by the Theory of Evolution:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html
BigGreenMachine
school. creation is religion as well so that won't be taught either.
i'm down for that.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
NashtOn wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
> > cafe...@msn.com wrote:
> >
> >>Oh really? I haven't a clue how science works? See the first item
> >>googled when typing in "scientific method":
> >
> > It's a pity you didn't look for this before making your initial post.
> >
> >
> >>http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
> >>
> >>"The scientific method has four steps
> >>1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
> >>
> >>2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics,
> >>the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
> >>mathematical relation.
> >>
> >>3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
> >>or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
> >>
> >>4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
> >>independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."
> >
> >
> > This is not a very good description of the scientific method, by the
> > way .Just because it's a page on the internet doesn't make it
> > authoritative.
> >
> > This one seems rather better:
> > http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000
> >
> > # 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
>
> Nothing to predict. What is in fact predicted by the ToE is its own
> assumptions.
Intermediates between land mammals and whales would be found. They
were.
No lagomorphs would be found in the Jurassic. So far, that has held
true.
Feathered reptiles, probably theropods, and with precursors to modern
bird structures would be found. They have been.
HIV mutations would trace the spread of AIDS in the human population.
It did.
I could go on, but I see that you already have your eyes closed and
your fingers in your ears.
>
> > # 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is
> > consistent with what you have observed.
>
> What has been observed? Anybody seen a species morph into another recently?
> It's all speculation, fed by wishful thinking with sprinkles of circular
> arguments.
The results of these events, like many forensic sciences have been
found, and can be observed by anyone willing to look.
Here's a few:
- Vestigial structures
- Homologies
- Nested hierarchies
- genetic
- morphology
- Vast and elaborate fossil record
- showing associations of flora and fauna indicating complete
ecosystems
- such ecosystems are ordered by time, found in appropriate strata
- flora and fauna are modifications of predecessors found in older
strata
- each ecosystem has recognizable contemporaries distributed
world-wide
- modifications in the organisms in these ecosystems chronologically
approach modern forms
- Continental drift
- Related to species distribution
- Related to nested hierarchies
- Behavioral studies show behavior best explained in light of above
processes
- Radiometric dating
- DNA and genetic data
- observed mechanisms offer explanations for above changes
- relationships of mutations, junk DNA, unexpressed genes, etc.
matching:
- morphological nested hieararchy
- fossil record shows good match to genetic "clocks"
- realtime observation of adaptation and speciation events
Evolutionary theory explains them all. In what way are *any of them
circular? Do you have an alternative theory which explains *all of
these lines of evidence?
>
>
> > # 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
>
> What does the useless ToE predict? That G_d doesn't exist, right?
No. And we have told you this every time you make this claim. I don't
believe anyone who can post on a computer is that stupid. Either you
have a serious mental problem, or you are obssessively dishonest.
> isn't it its leitmotiv?
Why, no, it's not. Do you have a cite for *anyone other than a
Creationist claiming this?
>
> > # 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and
> > modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
>
> In the case of the ToE, come up with something even more idiotic to fit
> the Cambrian explosion.
What's the problem with it? Critters "discovered" how to use hard
shells. Not only did that provide numerous paths for evolution to take
regarding structure, size, and various prey-predator strategies, but
the fossils preserved much better.
>
> > # 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between
> > theory and experiment and/or observation.
>
> You forgot: Teach young people that it is a fact, with no controversies,
> from a very young age and you get the people that post in here.
Evolution is taught as all science is taught. Except in schools where
creationism has corrupted their minds with hatred for honestry,
distortions by political pressure, and superstitions.
>
> >
> > Many branches of science, most notably astronomy, rely on observation
> > far more than experiment as your source suggests. Or perhaps you are
> > going to tell us that astronomy is not a science.
>
> Nothing to observe but the assumption that similarities/differences in
> the genome of different species arise from common decent.
Do you have alternative explanations for the list of evidence above?
Do you think that anyone is fooled by your lying? Are *you?
>
> Very few fossils to shake a stick at and yet, the ToE is a "fact."
>
- Vestigial structures
- Homologies
- Nested hierarchies
- genetic
- morphology
- Vast and elaborate fossil record
- showing associations of flora and fauna indicating complete
ecosystems
- such ecosystems are ordered by time, found in appropriate strata
- flora and fauna are modifications of predecessors found in older
strata
- each ecosystem has recognizable contemporaries distributed
world-wide
- modifications in the organisms in these ecosystems chronologically
approach modern forms
- Continental drift
- Related to species distribution
- Related to nested hierarchies
- Behavioral studies show behavior best explained in light of above
processes
- Radiometric dating
- DNA and genetic data
- observed mechanisms offer explanations for above changes
- relationships of mutations, junk DNA, unexpressed genes, etc.
matching:
- morphological nested hieararchy
- genetic clock matches fossil dating
- realtime observation of adaptation and speciation events
You have an alternative explanation for these?
> >
> > Next time you want to find out about the nature of science, or
> > scientific matters in general, why not ask a scientist? Many scientists
> > post on this forum, incidentally.
>
> Many clueless people post here also, like the fellow that disputed
> Stalin's Great Purge.
Ah, yes. Stalin, the one who rejected mainstream evolutionary theory
for ideological reasons. Yup. He killed lots.
And Hitler gassed hundreds of thousand. Guess that disproves chemistry.
>
> Nicolas
> >
> > RF
> >
> >
> >>It looks to me like the evolutionists are dodging step 4.
> >>
> >>Craig
> >>
> >>
> >>hbar...@troy.edu wrote:
> >>
> >>>Your opening statement:
> >>>
> >>>"Science is a unique in that a scientist only accepts a claim to be
> >>>true
> >>>if it is possible to witness that claim in an experiment or
> >>>observation"
> >>>
> >>>Shows that you haven't a clue how science works.
> >>>
> >>>HB
> >
> >
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
NashtOn wrote:
> cafe...@msn.com wrote:
> > Richard Forrest wrote:
> >
> >>cafe...@msn.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>Oh really? I haven't a clue how science works? See the first item
> >>>googled when typing in "scientific method":
> >>
> >>It's a pity you didn't look for this before making your initial post.
> >>
> >>
> >>>http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
> >>>
> >>>"The scientific method has four steps
> >>>1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
> >>>
> >>>2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics,
> >>>the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
> >>>mathematical relation.
> >>>
> >>>3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
> >>>or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
> >>>
> >>>4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
> >>>independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."
> >>
> >>This is not a very good description of the scientific method, by the
> >>way .Just because it's a page on the internet doesn't make it
> >>authoritative.
> >>
> >>This one seems rather better:
> >>http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000
> >>
> >># 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
> >>consistent with what you have observed.
> >>modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
> >>theory and experiment and/or observation.
> >>
> >>far more than experiment as your source suggests. Or perhaps you are
> >>going to tell us that astronomy is not a science.
> >>
> >>scientific matters in general, why not ask a scientist? Many scientists
> >>post on this forum, incidentally.
> >>
> >
> >
> > OK, your description mentioned "observations" while the first one that
> > I googled mentioned only "experiments". Fine. Now tell me, how can I
> > "observe" a lower ape giving birth to generations which eventually
> > produces a human being?
> >
> > You can't. Therefore, evolutionism is a religion, not science. It
> > shouldn't be taught in public school just like intelligent design and
> > creationism shouldn't be taught in public school. Let's just teach our
> > kids real science that has real-world applications so they will be able
> > to compete with the China and India, as I hear their economies are
> > evolving fast.
> >
>
> Well said.
>
> Agreed. As I've demonstrated on many occasions, the ToE is completely,
> utterly and definitely *useless*.
>
You haven't demonstrated it *yet. You simply claim it. What you *have
demonstrated is that you are dishonest, and have no evidence to support
your claims.
But you have so much to deal with; so let's keep it simple:
Why do humans have a plantaris tendon?
>
>
> Nicolas
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> >>I googled mentioned only "experiments". Fine. Now tell me, how can I
> >>"observe" a lower ape giving birth to generations which eventually
> >>produces a human being?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Oh please. If I take you to a home and inside you find a person who is
> > not moving, lying in a pool of blood, and a bullet is found within
> > them, you are claiming I can't prove that person was shot because I
> > didn't "observe" the shooting.
> The analogy is flawed It would go more like: Many people being killed by
> random bullets would actually produce a species more complex than modern
> man.
>
[...]
How old *are you?
The analogy given shows that we do, in fact determine events based on
their observing their consequences. Your analogy makes so sense
whatsoever.
>
> > Forensic evidence (such as that used to understand history) is *more
> > reliable* than eye-witness testimony because it can be verified by
> > independent parties. If I had a video tape (a long one) of earlier
> > apes evolving into humans, how would you be able to prove I didn't
> > falsify the tape? If I had watched it occur and told you about it, how
> > would you know if I was telling the truth? On the other hand, if I
> > give you access to the physical evidence (which is plentiful) you can
> > do your own tests to verify mine.
>
> Forensic evidence is excellent.Too bad the ToE lacks it sorely. You dug
> yourself in this hole.
What hole? You're babbling. Do you *really not realize that this makes
no sense?
>
> Nicolas
>
> > Lee Jay
> >
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
NashtOn wrote:
> wf3...@comcast.net wrote:
> > On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:14:48 GMT, NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Richard Forrest wrote:
> >
> >
> >>># 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
> >>
> >>Nothing to predict. What is in fact predicted by the ToE is its own
> >>assumptions.
> >
> >
> > gee...darwin predicted transitional forms...and we find those in the
> > fossil record
>
> We have very few "transitional" fossils.
No, we have lots.
Here are some of them:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Anyway, how many would we need? One line of transitions would suffice.
>
> Do you think there would be a discussion about this if this were the case?
This isn't a discussion.
" noun: an exchange of views on some topic (Example: "We had a good
discussion") "
You're sending, but you're not receiving.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>># 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is
> >>>consistent with what you have observed.
> >>
> >>What has been observed? Anybody seen a species morph into another recently?
> >
> >
> > actually, yes. the speciation of mosquitoes in the london subway has
> > been observed.
>
> References,please.
The molestus mosquito form isolated in London's Underground, has
speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).
>
> >
> >
> >>># 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
> >>
> >>What does the useless ToE predict? That G_d doesn't exist, right? isn't
> >>it its leitmotiv?
> >
> >
> > ROFLMAO!! never seen that in a science journal. perhaps the
> > creationist can tell us where we can see that journal reference.
>
> Don't break a bone falling off a chair.
>
>
So, do you have a cite, or did you just make that up? Hint: quoting
another creaionist is not a cite. Supporting this claim requires only a
cite of a scientific journal or two that makes this attempt. Of course,
one has to go a bit further to establish that this is its lietmotiv,
but I'll allow a little leeway for exaggeration.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>># 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between
> >>>theory and experiment and/or observation.
> >>
> >>You forgot: Teach young people that it is a fact, with no controversies,
> >
> >>from a very young age and you get the people that post in here.
> >
> > gee. every science has controversies. that's why science still exists.
>
> None that pits the Creator against naturalistic randomness and the lie
> of increasing complexity.
Correct. There are no scientific controversies that pit any creator
against anything.
>
> >
> > oh. nasht doesn't do science. he's a creationist.
> >
> > that's what's got him confused.
>
> Stick with the arguments. What's wrong, not sure they're valid so you're
> resorting to childish crap?
>
> Be a man.
L'see. Yup, you signed Nicolas, so I guess you're a man with this post.
Can you support *any of your claims? I have. Almost everyone responding
to you has.
>
>
> >
> >>>Many branches of science, most notably astronomy, rely on observation
> >>>far more than experiment as your source suggests. Or perhaps you are
> >>>going to tell us that astronomy is not a science.
> >>
> >>Nothing to observe but the assumption that similarities/differences in
> >>the genome of different species arise from common decent.
> >>
> >>Very few fossils to shake a stick at and yet, the ToE is a "fact."
> >
> >
> > ROFLMAO!! even HE admits that they exist yet he denies they exist.!!
>
> I never denied fossils exist. time to brush up your reading
> comprehension, buddy.
Right. You always claim that not *enough fossils exist. How many are
necessary, and how do you determine that?
>
> Nicolas
> >
> >
> >
Kermit
Are you cute when you're Nicola?
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> Anyway, scientists are lying when they say that evolution is a fact.
As evolutionary speciation has been observed out there in the wild,
evolution is a fact, and YOU are the liar.
> It's not. It's just a theory.
Thanks for admitting your ignorance about the meaning of "theory" in
science.
> A fact is something that a person is able
> to directly witness.
And we all are able to reliably repeat all observations that constitute
evidence for evolution... like fossils always being found in the same
layers of the fossil record, or genetic similarities of species always
fittin perfectly into the evolutionary tree of life.
Again, thanks for admitting your ignorance. Your PRATTs were well-known but
still kind of amusing, especially considering that you probably thought
that your long-debunked nonsense would be oh-so-smart damning evidence,
usable to destroy "Evilution(TM)". But I suggest you try something new next
time. Thank you.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
Why I am not a christian:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus/nojebus
Shane
Don't worry too much about Nicky. Nicky thinks that animals make up the
majority of life on this planet, he also thinks that 2/3's of Americans
can get an abortion as a means of contraception. Obviously he is not
over burdened with reasoning ability.
--
Shane
Joe Cummings
>
>Richard Forrest wrote:
>> cafe...@msn.com wrote:
>> > Oh really? I haven't a clue how science works? See the first item
>> > googled when typing in "scientific method":
>> It's a pity you didn't look for this before making your initial post.
>>
>> > http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
>> >
>> > "The scientific method has four steps
>> > 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
>> >
>> > 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics,
>> > the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
>> > mathematical relation.
>> >
>> > 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
>> > or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
>> >
>> > 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
>> > independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."
>>
>> This is not a very good description of the scientific method, by the
>> way .Just because it's a page on the internet doesn't make it
>> authoritative.
>>
>> This one seems rather better:
>> http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000
>>
>> # 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
>> # 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is
>> consistent with what you have observed.
>> # 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
>> # 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and
>> modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
>> # 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between
>> theory and experiment and/or observation.
>>
>> Many branches of science, most notably astronomy, rely on observation
>> far more than experiment as your source suggests. Or perhaps you are
>> going to tell us that astronomy is not a science.
>>
>> Next time you want to find out about the nature of science, or
>> scientific matters in general, why not ask a scientist? Many scientists
>> post on this forum, incidentally.
>>
>> RF
>
>OK, your description mentioned "observations" while the first one that
>I googled mentioned only "experiments". Fine. Now tell me, how can I
>"observe" a lower ape giving birth to generations which eventually
>produces a human being?
Could I refer you to my earlier posting on this thread?
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
>
>You can't. Therefore, evolutionism is a religion, not science. It
>shouldn't be taught in public school just like intelligent design and
>creationism shouldn't be taught in public school. Let's just teach our
>kids real science that has real-world applications so they will be able
>to compete with the China and India, as I hear their economies are
>evolving fast.
>
>Craig
>
>>
>> >
Richard Smol
cafe...@msn.com wrote:
> Anyway, scientists are lying when they say that evolution is a fact.
> It's not. It's just a theory. A fact is something that a person is able
> to directly witness.
Aww.. don't you just hate it that you can't just burn anyone at the
stake anymore for simply not supporting your narrow beliefs? The are
hard times indeed for fundamentalist Christians.
RS
Mike Dworetsky
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:41luq5F...@individual.net...
> Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> >
> >
> > This has been directly observed for at least a decade, using GPS
satellite
> > and LAGEOS satellite system.
>
> GPS movement determinations are inferential. They are inferred from
> corrections determined by the theory of relativity. Any GPS
> determination is indirect and inferential.
>
> Bob Kolker
>
Your claim assumes that there are no independent verifications of
relativity, but there are numerous confirming tests of Special and General
Relativity that do not rely on the GPS satellite system. A good example is
the way in which GR solar light deflection was confirmed by the Hipparcos
satellite.
Also, GPS and other satellite and interferometry methods give confirming
result for plate movements in other cases, where geographical locations are
moving towards each other, or slipping sideways. You couldn't get such
results purely by coincidence.
40 years ago it might have been said that continental drift was a plausible
explanation for many seemingly unrelated facts, but now there are many more
observations that elevate it from well-supported speculation to directly
observed phenomenon.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
Ernest Major
Stuart <bigd...@aol.com> writes
>
>NashtOn wrote:
>> wf3...@comcast.net wrote:
>> > On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:14:48 GMT, NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>Richard Forrest wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>># 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
>> >>
>> >>Nothing to predict. What is in fact predicted by the ToE is its own
>> >>assumptions.
>> >
>> >
>> > gee...darwin predicted transitional forms...and we find those in the
>> > fossil record
>>
>> We have very few "transitional" fossils.
You're probably more than one order of magnitude out on the low side.
There's about a quarter of a million known fossil species.
>
>Several thousand is more than a few.
>
>And, creationism has no explanation for even one transitional fossil.
>
>Stuart
>
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.9/217 - Release Date: 30/12/2005
Stuart
Ernest Major wrote:
> In message <1135996439.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Stuart <bigd...@aol.com> writes
> >
> >NashtOn wrote:
> >> wf3...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:14:48 GMT, NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>Richard Forrest wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>># 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
> >> >>
> >> >>Nothing to predict. What is in fact predicted by the ToE is its own
> >> >>assumptions.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > gee...darwin predicted transitional forms...and we find those in the
> >> > fossil record
> >>
> >> We have very few "transitional" fossils.
>
> You're probably more than one order of magnitude out on the low side.
> There's about a quarter of a million known fossil species.
The issue was number of transitional fossils, not number of fossils. I
hope your not going to argue that every fossil is transitional. Cuz
thats just plain silly.
>
> >
> >Several thousand is more than a few.
> >
STuart
Ernest Major
Stuart <bigd...@aol.com> writes
>> >> We have very few "transitional" fossils.
>>
>> You're probably more than one order of magnitude out on the low side.
>> There's about a quarter of a million known fossil species.
>
>The issue was number of transitional fossils, not number of fossils. I
>hope your not going to argue that every fossil is transitional. Cuz
>thats just plain silly.
It not obvious where to draw the line between transitional and
non-transitional fossils, but wou;dn't argue that every fossil is
transitional.
>>
>> >
>> >Several thousand is more than a few.
>> >
But several thousand (if counting fossils, rather than species) is a
minuscule proportion of the number of fossils - at a guess about 0.01%.
I'd guess that there's several thousand transitional mammal fossils
alone.
Lee Jay
> >>I googled mentioned only "experiments". Fine. Now tell me, how can I
> >>"observe" a lower ape giving birth to generations which eventually
> >>produces a human being?
> >>
> >
> > Oh please. If I take you to a home and inside you find a person who is
> > not moving, lying in a pool of blood, and a bullet is found within
> > them, you are claiming I can't prove that person was shot because I
> > didn't "observe" the shooting.
> The analogy is flawed It would go more like: Many people being killed by
> random bullets would actually produce a species more complex than modern
> man.
As has already been pointed out, you missed the point entirely as you
frequently do. You should go back and read what was posted with some
care and see if you can get it on the second time through.
> Forensic evidence is excellent.Too bad the ToE lacks it sorely. You dug
> yourself in this hole.
Digging holes is a good way to find forensic evidence in the field.
Fortunately, much of this work has been done for you. All you have to
do is read the reports of the findings of those "digs" and you can
learn a lot. Unfortunately, you seem unwilling or unable to do that
research even though much of it is freely available to you on the web.
If you did, you wouldn't make such unsupportable claims like the one
you just made above.
Lee Jay
Lee Jay
> Agreed. As I've demonstrated on many occasions, the ToE is completely,
> utterly and definitely *useless*.
Your inability to respond to my refutation of that ridiculous claim in
noted:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/cda9deb32579df93?dmode=source
Lee Jay