Proof anywhere??

[Hannah Gresham]

This is all based on inaccurate bases. None of it is at all logical,
nor is it based on PROOF. In science, that is one thing we have on our
side. PROOF. Show me proof of any legitimate kind, and then I may just
believe this nonsense.

[wiki trix]

On Jun 10, 10:57 pm, Hannah Gresham <hannahgresham...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Wrong. Science and proof do not mix. Learn something about before
talking about it.

[Robert Carnegie]

Which "nonsense" are you talking about?

I'll guess that you are disagreeing with the
Theory of Evolution, since most people who turn
up in this forum already angry, are taking that
position, but I'll await confirmation.

[chris thompson]

Drive-by post. OP not interested in responses.

Chris

[jillery]

Show me what you mean by legitimate kind, and I may just believe
you're sincere.

[shane]

On 11/06/2013 12:57, Hannah Gresham wrote:

Response to Hannah the creationist

> This is all based on inaccurate bases.

that was true many years ago, but since the internet, we now know that
all your base are belong to us.

> None of it is at all logical,

The cake is a lie--tell me the logic in that, yet it was true.

> nor is it based on PROOF. In science, that is one thing we have on our
> side. PROOF.

Our!!!! There is almost no chance in 8 billion that you are on the side
of science, let alone a scientist.

> Show me proof of any legitimate kind, and then I may just
> believe this nonsense.

Why would you believe nonsense? Ohh wait a moment, let me guess, you
already believe nonsense, so it has, if nothing else, a comforting sense
of familiarity about it.

----------------------------------

Response to Hannah the non-creationist.

> This is all based on inaccurate bases. None of it is at all logical,
> nor is it based on PROOF. In science, that is one thing we have on our

> side. PROOF Show me proof of any legitimate kind, and then I may just
> believe this nonsense.

Yes, basing things on the words of ancient men is not a sure fire way to
ensure accuracy.

You may want to replace your usage of the word 'proof', with 'evidence'.

Indeed, one of the most difficult things to get a biblical literalist to
do is define 'kind', and in the absence of that definition, we do indeed
consider the concept to be nonsense.

[chris thompson]

Nah, that's not hard (from the creationist dictionary):

"Kind (noun, verb, adj., adv., as needed): A kind is anything we need
it to be, at any time, to evade discomfiting questions from people who
know something about biology."

There, isn't that easy?

Chris

[shane]

That's the macro kind, I wanted the micro kind defined.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:57:10 -0700 (PDT), Hannah Gresham
<hannahgr...@gmail.com> wrote:

I sure hope you will come back and discuss this, because the evidence
for the descent of all living organisms on earth from a common ancestor
that lived billions of years ago is overwhelming. The blind spot in
each of your eyes is a tiny part of the evidence.

Unfortunately, since science is based on repeated observations, ALL its
conclusions are tentative and subject to revision. Thus, the concept of
PROOF exists NOwhere in science.

Instead science works with the best available explanation that explains
all the evidence. All known alternative explanations to evolution for
the diversity of life on earth have been shown to badly contradict the
evidence. If you know a better explanation, you will need to present
it.

Thanks for your comment.

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[Nick Keighley]

On Jun 11, 3:57 am, Hannah Gresham <hannahgresham...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is all based on inaccurate bases.

what is "this"?

> None of it is at all logical,
> nor is it based on PROOF. In science, that is one thing we have on our
> side. PROOF.

no.science isn't about proof but upon the weight of evidence. It is
about "models" or explanations that have explanatory power.

> Show me proof of any legitimate kind, and then I may just
> believe this nonsense.

explain to me what the "nonsense" is that you are concerned about and
I may be able to offer you some evidence.

[Kermit]

You didn't clarify what position you hold on which subject, so I'll
assume you are an unpracticed creationist drive-by poster.

Proof is a term properly used for closed systems of logic, like
arithmetic.

For reality, we have persuasive and less-than-persuasive evidence, or
refuting evidence, or none at all. We humans, you see, are fallible,
and the scientific community has developed ways to minimize errors by
seeking them and demanding confirmation by multiple people and data.

Science uses verifiable evidence: evidence that can be seen by anybody
(at least, anybody who takes the trouble). A model or hypothesis is a
testable explanation. It is *testable because it makes predictions
about evidence that hasn't been found yet. "If X is the explanation,
then if we look here, we should see this."

As long as the model is supported by the continued collection of
evidence, it is true. There may be more than one true model. It may
seem illogical to claim that there is more than one correct
explanation, but until we have evidence that (at least) one of them is
wrong, we cannot tell which is we should prefer.

A theory is a robust model that has stood the test of time and
explains a significant body of related data. In science, a theory is
as good as it gets, not the general usage of "idle speculation".

So, which evidence do you consider is not verifiable and accurate?
The chronological progression of fossils from ancient forms to modern,
or the twin nested hierarchies of morphology and genetics, or the
observation of adaptation of populations in the field in real time
observation, or what? Note that multiple classes of evidence that
paint the same picture of events is evidence in itself.

Or perhaps you would care to explain in what way the modern synthesis
of Darwin's dangerous idea and genetics has been falsified?

Perhaps you have another testable model which explains all of the
data? If so, please share with us what it is, what evidence it
predicts we will find, and why we should prefer it to a model that has
grown in complexity and reliability over the past 150 years.

But it's OK; I know you won't be back, and I'm just responding here
for practice. No hard feelings - we know you've got nuthin'.

kermit

[jillery]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 23:44:50 +1000, shane <rema...@netscape.net>
wrote:

Think small.

[Earle Jones]

In article
<ef22ae3c-b81c-4b4a...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

*
Young lady: You need a first-order quickie lesson in Science 101.

A "Proof" is something that exists in certain areas of Mathematics and
formal logic constructs.

There is no "proof" in science.

earle
*

[Earle Jones]

In article <vpbdr8pfb2gqgd9oj...@4ax.com>,

*
In my opinion, she is sincere as hell! Educated, she is not.

Yodo
*

[jillery]

I assume all drive-by posters are insincere. YMMV

As for educated, she is that, but has either the wrong kind or not
enough.

[Thrinaxodon]

On Jun 11, 2:17 am, shane <remar...@netscape.net> wrote:

There is a strong case that Humans originated in the Devonian. Yet,
the evidence has been shoved away by major corporations, as the Leakey
Foundation. Thrinaxodon has found a human skeleton, char, and a femur
in a Devonian stratum.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 05:49:19 UTC+1, chris thompson wrote:
> Drive-by post. OP not interested in responses.

How do you assess this as a drive-by post?

Normally, I wouldn't depend on a follow-up from original
poster in less than a few days.

Since the poster didn't introduce herself or explain
what she was talking about, I considered that it may
have been not even meant for this group.

But it's also possible that some of us have frightened
away a potential new member, by yelling at her.
That's counter-productive.

[J. J. Lodder]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 05:49:19 UTC+1, chris thompson wrote:
> > Drive-by post. OP not interested in responses.
>
> How do you assess this as a drive-by post?

By the pricking of my thumbs ...

Jan

[jonathan]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vpbdr8pfb2gqgd9oj...@4ax.com...

Good question, isn't this ng about evolution/nature?
That would change the normal concept of proof.


"as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain;
and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
~Albert Einstein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics



"If a 'religion' is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Gödel taught us that mathematics
is not only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself
to be one." ~ John Barrow Cambridge Mathematics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Barrow



And my mentor E Dickinson pointed out long ago, the
concept of proof and nature contradict each other since
nature constantly changes, while facts do not. As a result
'proving' or defining a concept as simple as "Day' or 'Morning'
is entirely beyond your beloved objective science.
No matter how closely one looks.


"Will there really be a "Morning"?
Is there such a thing as "Day"?
Could I see it from the mountains
If I were as tall as they?

Oh some Scholar! Oh some Sailor!
Oh some Wise Man from the skies!
Please to tell a little Pilgrim
Where the place called "Morning" lies!"



If something that simple is impossible to objectively define
what about the more complex, of which nature is chock full?



s

[jonathan]

"Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lneer8p6j35rtbcro...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:57:10 -0700 (PDT), Hannah Gresham
> <hannahgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>This is all based on inaccurate bases. None of it is at all logical,
>>nor is it based on PROOF. In science, that is one thing we have on our
>>side. PROOF. Show me proof of any legitimate kind, and then I may just
>>believe this nonsense.
>
>
> I sure hope you will come back and discuss this, because the evidence
> for the descent of all living organisms on earth from a common ancestor
> that lived billions of years ago is overwhelming. The blind spot in
> each of your eyes is a tiny part of the evidence.

That doesn't necessarily mean the concept of evolution
is complete or entirely correct. There's a big difference
between claiming what is fairly obvious in that life
evolved from simpler forms, it's another to build an
accurate and complete theory on just ...how that all
happened.

>
> Unfortunately, since science is based on repeated observations, ALL its
> conclusions are tentative and subject to revision. Thus, the concept of
> PROOF exists NOwhere in science.
>
> Instead science works with the best available explanation that explains
> all the evidence.

That's a cop-out, that doesn't necessarily mean your chosen methods
of observing and gathering evidence are valid and represents reality
properly.

> All known alternative explanations to evolution for
> the diversity of life on earth have been shown to badly contradict the
> evidence. If you know a better explanation, you will need to present
> it.
>

Not really a different explanation, just more modern and
based in mathematics, rather than biology. Which places
the concepts of evolution in abstract form so they can
be used in many other contexts. That universal applicability
means the truth of these ideas are far easier to...prove.


Self Organizing Systems Faq
Frequently Asked Questions
http://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm


s

[Kermit]

On 11 June, 21:45, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:01:11 -0700, Earle Jones
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >In article <vpbdr8pfb2gqgd9ojd6dnfb4grlbmkd...@4ax.com>,

> > jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:57:10 -0700 (PDT), Hannah Gresham
> >> <hannahgresham...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >This is all based on inaccurate bases. None of it is at all logical,
> >> >nor is it based on PROOF. In science, that is one thing we have on our
> >> >side. PROOF. Show me proof of any legitimate kind, and then I may just
> >> >believe this nonsense.
>
> >> Show me what you mean by legitimate kind, and I may just believe
> >> you're sincere.
>
> >*
> >In my opinion, she is sincere as hell!  Educated, she is not.
>
> >Yodo
> >*
>
> I assume all drive-by posters are insincere.  YMMV

Half my family are creationists, and they act like this. I think of it
as "counting coup for Christ".

They make statements without listening to the answer.
They are rude, but centered in their privilege, and blinded by their
inability to see other points of view (including how they look to
others), they are unaware of that.
They are utterly disinterested in dialog, for what have they to learn
about this subject?
They have spent their whole lives learning not to question these
assumptions, they aren't about to start now.

So they are utterly sincere in what they say or imply with their
questions, but no, they don't want an answer.

>
> As for educated, she is that, but has either the wrong kind or not
> enough.

I would have said "poorly informed" but what you said works also.

kermit

[Inez]

And without proof, it only make sense to believe in a magical
invisible sky daddy.

[jillery]

Fair point. Some of my family behave similarly. I agree they believe
what they say, but they don't care about what someone else might say
in reply. So they might as well have kept it to themselves. Which is
why I doubt the sincerity of their behavior, not their beliefs.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Wednesday, 12 June 2013 17:30:46 UTC+1, Kermit wrote:
> On 11 June, 21:45, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I assume all drive-by posters are insincere.  YMMV
>
> Half my family are creationists, and they act like this.
> I think of it as "counting coup for Christ".
> They make statements without listening to the answer.

I've wondered whether some Christians post-and-run
on the topic of creationism with such as justification,
in their eyes; they give their testimony for Christ
just once and they leave the rest of the task for,
as I recall, the Holy Spirit to do - or so I suspect.
He's the one who's responsible for that.

But in this case, I'm not even sure which side Hannah
is on. She could be dismissing creationism - or
global warming - or austerity economics.

I've written to invite her back; but we're having
a fine lively conversation without her, aren't we?

[ed wolf]

Am Dienstag, 11. Juni 2013 05:14:25 UTC+2 schrieb wiki trix:
> On Jun 10, 10:57 pm, Hannah Gresham

> wrote:
> > This is all based on inaccurate bases. None of it is at all logical,

> > side. PROOF. Show me proof of any legitimate kind, and then I may just
> > believe this nonsense.

> Wrong. Science and proof do not mix. Learn something about before
> talking about it.

Have mercy. A layperson or any one with English as a second
language can not know that usage. Words like Hannah´s have
been used again and again against various unsupported claims.
It could be about Ley Lines, Virgin Birth, the necessity of
bailing out banks, or the possibility of living in peace and
harmony with ones family. Probably science had nothing to do
with it. OTOH her readiness to believe in nonsense if only
"legitimate proof" is shown, does point to a religious disposition.
regards
ed

[Robert Carnegie]

On Wednesday, 12 June 2013 21:13:18 UTC+1, ed wolf wrote:
> Her readiness to believe in nonsense if only

> "legitimate proof" is shown, does point to a religious
> disposition.

I'd say only a reasonable point of view. Some apparent
nonsense turns out to be scientific truth. I'll quote
Sherlock Holmes and Niels Bohr: "How often have I said
to you that when you have eliminated the impossible,
whatever remains, /however improbable/, must be the truth?"
And "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has
not understood it."

There are lots of surprises in science. What about the
dinosaurs being wiped out by the science-fiction disaster
movie of an asteroid slamming into the Earth?

[wiki trix]

On Jun 12, 4:13 pm, ed wolf <eduartw...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 11. Juni 2013 05:14:25 UTC+2 schrieb wiki trix:
>
> > On Jun 10, 10:57 pm, Hannah Gresham
> > wrote:
> > > This is all based on inaccurate bases. None of it is at all logical,
> > > side. PROOF. Show me proof of any legitimate kind, and then I may just
> > > believe this nonsense.
> > Wrong. Science and proof do not mix. Learn something about before
> > talking about it.
>
> Have mercy. A layperson or any one with English as a second
> language can not know that usage.

Nope. People who do not know anything about science should limit
themselves to asking questions about science, not making uneducated
assertions about science. I know little about ship building... and
therefore I do not make any bold claims about ship building. See how
easy that is?

[Friar Broccoli]

We do not know who this person is. If it is this person:

https://plus.google.com/105254913234503906551/about

I would not want to be expressing sentiments like these.

[wiki trix]

On Jun 13, 1:31 am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:12:31 -0700 (PDT), Inez
>

> <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 10, 7:57 pm, Hannah Gresham <hannahgresham...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> This is all based on inaccurate bases. None of it is at all logical,
> >> nor is it based on PROOF. In science, that is one thing we have on our
> >> side. PROOF. Show me proof of any legitimate kind, and then I may just
> >> believe this nonsense.
>
> >And without proof, it only make sense to believe in a magical
> >invisible sky daddy.
>
> We do not know who this person is.  If it is this person:
>
> https://plus.google.com/105254913234503906551/about
>
> I would not want to be expressing sentiments like these.

Why?

[Thrinaxodon]

Such as Darwin's *principle* of natural selection...

--
Thrinaxodon

[J. J. Lodder]

Kermit <free...@charter.net> wrote:

> On 11 June, 21:45, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:01:11 -0700, Earle Jones
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >In article <vpbdr8pfb2gqgd9ojd6dnfb4grlbmkd...@4ax.com>,
> > > jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:57:10 -0700 (PDT), Hannah Gresham
> > >> <hannahgresham...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> >This is all based on inaccurate bases. None of it is at all logical,
> > >> >nor is it based on PROOF. In science, that is one thing we have on our
> > >> >side. PROOF. Show me proof of any legitimate kind, and then I may just
> > >> >believe this nonsense.
> >
> > >> Show me what you mean by legitimate kind, and I may just believe
> > >> you're sincere.
> >
> > >*
> > >In my opinion, she is sincere as hell! Educated, she is not.
> >
> > >Yodo
> > >*
> >
> > I assume all drive-by posters are insincere. YMMV
>
> Half my family are creationists, and they act like this. I think of it
> as "counting coup for Christ".

I is an improvement that it's no longer
'Kill a commie for Christ', I suppose.

Not their improvement I guess,
but due to a shortage of 'Commies',

Jan

[Friar Broccoli]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 05:02:05 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com>
wrote:

.

>Why?

Compassion.

[wiki trix]

On Jun 13, 11:11 am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 05:02:05 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 13, 1:31 am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:12:31 -0700 (PDT), Inez
>
> >> <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jun 10, 7:57 pm, Hannah Gresham <hannahgresham...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> This is all based on inaccurate bases. None of it is at all logical,
> >> >> nor is it based on PROOF. In science, that is one thing we have on our
> >> >> side. PROOF. Show me proof of any legitimate kind, and then I may just
> >> >> believe this nonsense.
>
>  .
>
> >> >And without proof, it only make sense to believe in a magical
> >> >invisible sky daddy.
>
> >> We do not know who this person is.  If it is this person:
>
> >>https://plus.google.com/105254913234503906551/about
>
> >> I would not want to be expressing sentiments like these.
>
>  .
>
> >Why?
>
> Compassion.

Phhhht...

[Inez]

On Jun 12, 10:31 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:12:31 -0700 (PDT), Inez
>

Bah humbug! I certainly hope everyone named Hannah Gresham beats any
cancers they might happen to have, but if she wants politeness she
should try not being a creationist troll. It's not my responsibility
to do background checks on every drive-by who comes by this place.

[wiki trix]

Yes. Special indulgent treatment is not a form of kindness in such
cases. Hannah should be dissuaded from wishful thinking. Lest she get
tricked into paying her last nickel on turmeric enemas, and such. We
will all die. We all suffer to some degree. Best not to be
condescending and patronizing.

[ed wolf]

I totally agree common sense can be a poor guide to nature,
and the laws of physics are not self evident to an uneducated
newcomer. But the OP wrote "Show me proof of any legitimate
kind, and then I may just believe this nonsense." This is what
one would say to some preacher peddling gods or miracles.
Just to shut him up, not to start a discussion.
whatever, by now we know it was a drive by
ed

[John Stockwell]

On Monday, June 10, 2013 8:57:10 PM UTC-6, Hannah Gresham wrote:
> This is all based on inaccurate bases. None of it is at all logical,
>
> nor is it based on PROOF. In science, that is one thing we have on our
>

> side. PROOF. Show me proof of any legitimate kind, and then I may just
>
> believe this nonsense.

Proof is for mathematicians. If you want to study science
that is about theories, hypotheses generated by those theories, and tests of those hypotheses via physical evidence.

-John

[Desertphile]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:57:10 -0700 (PDT), Hannah Gresham

<hannahgr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is all based on inaccurate bases. None of it is at all logical,
> nor is it based on PROOF. In science, that is one thing we have on our
> side. PROOF. Show me proof of any legitimate kind, and then I may just
> believe this nonsense.

If you insist upon proof, then you are not interested in science.


--
"Are you kidding me? Its more than proved. CO@ has nothing to do with
Climate Changing.. wondering what are you intentions with this" --- cacasarq

[Glenn]

"Desertphile" <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote in message news:8pd4t8pdevhnl3ma9...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:57:10 -0700 (PDT), Hannah Gresham
> <hannahgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is all based on inaccurate bases. None of it is at all logical,
> > nor is it based on PROOF. In science, that is one thing we have on our
> > side. PROOF. Show me proof of any legitimate kind, and then I may just
> > believe this nonsense.
>
> If you insist upon proof, then you are not interested in science.
>

Polly want a cracker?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof
"the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact "
"the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning "

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/proof
"evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement"

The word "fact" is flippantly bandied about around here on a regular basis by those claiming to be "interested in science".

[Robert Carnegie]

A scientist's vow of chastity allows them to use "evidence" but prevents
them from treating evidence as "proof". That's the distinction, the same
one as between a "theory" (the highest truth in science) and a "fact".

In practice they're much the same thing, but we should not use the
wrong terms.

[Burkhard]

On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 9:14:31 AM UTC+1, Robert Carnegie wrote:
<snip>

>
> > > If you insist upon proof, then you are not interested in science.
>
> > Polly want a cracker?
>
> > <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof>
> > "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of
> > a truth or a fact"
>
> > "the process or an instance of establishing the validity of
>
> > a statement especially by derivation from other statements in
>
> > accordance with principles of reasoning"
>
> >
>
> > <http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/proof>
>
> > "evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact
>
> > or the truth of a statement"
>
> >
>
> > The word "fact" is flippantly bandied about around here on a regular
>> > basis by those claiming to be "interested in science".

>>>> A scientist's vow of chastity allows them to use "evidence" but prevents
>> them from treating evidence as "proof". That's the distinction, the same
>> one as between a "theory" (the highest truth in science) and a "fact".
>

> In practice they're much the same thing, but we should not use the
> wrong terms.

I'm half with Glenn on that. Empirical scientist do use the term proof all the time, examples are e.g.:

Bienz, Mariann, and Hans Clevers. "Armadillo/β-catenin signals in the nucleus–proof beyond a reasonable doubt?." Nature cell biology 5.3 (2003): 179-182.

Garrido-Ramos, M. A., et al. "Morphometric and genetic analysis as proof of the existence of two sturgeon species in the Guadalquivir river." Marine Biology 129.1 (1997): 33-39.

Ukai-Tadenuma, Maki, Takeya Kasukawa, and Hiroki R. Ueda. "Proof-by-synthesis of the transcriptional logic of mammalian circadian clocks." nature cell biology 10.10 (2008): 1154-1163.

Scientists when using these terms simply know what they are talking about, that is a particularly strong type of evidence that shifts at the very least the burden of proof (sic!) to the other side.

The problem is more that it is a rather typical creationist strategy to demand the type of proof reserved for mathematics, or start with an otherwise unreasonably high standard of what counts as proof, only then to imply wrongly that the ToE is not extremely well supported with evidence (short of mathematical proof)

A similar mistake is made by people who repeat unthinkingly the cliche that correlation does not proof causation, while ignoring that it can be bloody good evidence for it.

so a much better reply to the OP would indeed be; you probably apply an inappropriate standard for proof, one that is only ever found in mathematics, and not in any other field of human knowledge. If you apply it consistently, and not selectively to biology, you will die a painful death, as there is also no "proof", in that sense, that arsenic kills, gravity makes you fall form buildings and human bodies can' withstand heat over 500 degrees

[Desertphile]

On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:44:14 -0700, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>
> "Desertphile" <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote in message news:8pd4t8pdevhnl3ma9...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:57:10 -0700 (PDT), Hannah Gresham
> > <hannahgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This is all based on inaccurate bases. None of it is at all logical,
> > > nor is it based on PROOF. In science, that is one thing we have on our
> > > side. PROOF. Show me proof of any legitimate kind, and then I may just
> > > believe this nonsense.
> >
> > If you insist upon proof, then you are not interested in science.

> Polly want a cracker?

Huh? Science never proves: science disproves.


--
Denial Does NOT Stop Sea Level Rise

[J. J. Lodder]

Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:44:14 -0700, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Desertphile" <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote in message news:8pd4t8pdev

hnl3ma9sgu8o...@4ax.com...

> > > On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:57:10 -0700 (PDT), Hannah Gresham
> > > <hannahgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is all based on inaccurate bases. None of it is at all logical,
> > > > nor is it based on PROOF. In science, that is one thing we have on our
> > > > side. PROOF. Show me proof of any legitimate kind, and then I may just
> > > > believe this nonsense.
> > >
> > > If you insist upon proof, then you are not interested in science.
>
> > Polly want a cracker?
>
> Huh? Science never proves: science disproves.

And not even that,

Jan

[John Stockwell]

We in the science biz tend to use the term "proof" to refer only to
mathematical proofs. We tend to use the term "observations" or "experimental
results" and view those as being "facts", but we don't say that "theories"
become "facts". On talk.origins and other places people say that "evolution
is both a fact and a theory", when they should say that "evolution is a phenomenon as well as a theory".


-John

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 3 Jul 2013 15:21:58 -0700 (PDT), John Stockwell
<john.1...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:

Do you think Glenn understands the word phenomenon? evolution?
observations? experiments?

[chris thompson]

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 6:11:04 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 05:49:19 UTC+1, chris thompson wrote:
>
> > Drive-by post. OP not interested in responses.
>
>
>
> How do you assess this as a drive-by post?

Well, there was this goat. I sacrificed it and checked the entrails. It seems to have worked, since Hannah has not been back to respond

Chris

>
>
>
> Normally, I wouldn't depend on a follow-up from original
>
> poster in less than a few days.
>
>
>
> Since the poster didn't introduce herself or explain
>
> what she was talking about, I considered that it may
>
> have been not even meant for this group.
>
>
>
> But it's also possible that some of us have frightened
>
> away a potential new member, by yelling at her.
>
> That's counter-productive.

[Glenn]

"John Stockwell" <john.1...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:de3b34c6-95e4-4e8e...@googlegroups.com...

> On Monday, July 1, 2013 8:44:14 PM UTC-6, Glenn wrote:
> > "Desertphile" <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote in message news:8pd4t8pdevhnl3ma9...@4ax.com...
> >
> > > On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:57:10 -0700 (PDT), Hannah Gresham
> >
> > > <hannahgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > This is all based on inaccurate bases. None of it is at all logical,
> >
> > > > nor is it based on PROOF. In science, that is one thing we have on our
> >
> > > > side. PROOF. Show me proof of any legitimate kind, and then I may just
> >
> > > > believe this nonsense.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > If you insist upon proof, then you are not interested in science.
> >
> > >
> >
> > Polly want a cracker?
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof
> >
> > "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact "
> >
> > "the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning "
> >
> >
> >
> > http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/proof
> >
> > "evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement"
> >
> >
> >
> > The word "fact" is flippantly bandied about around here on a regular basis by those claiming to be "interested in science".
>
> We in the science biz tend to use the term "proof" to refer only to
> mathematical proofs.

Burkhard provided reference disproving that all your "we" do.

>We tend to use the term "observations" or "experimental
> results" and view those as being "facts", but we don't say that "theories"
> become "facts". On talk.origins and other places people say that "evolution
> is both a fact and a theory", when they should say that "evolution is a phenomenon as well as a theory".
>

"Tend to", eh. How does one refute that?

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
"However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples."

[Glenn]

"Desertphile" <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote in message news:vbs6t8lnsnbhi41g3...@4ax.com...

"The predictions are to be posted before a confirming experiment or observation is sought, as proof that no tampering has occurred. Disproof of a prediction is evidence of progress."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

[Glenn]

"chris thompson" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:49793886-58ef-4a3d...@googlegroups.com...

> On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 6:11:04 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 05:49:19 UTC+1, chris thompson wrote:
> >
> > > Drive-by post. OP not interested in responses.
> >
> >
> >
> > How do you assess this as a drive-by post?
>
> Well, there was this goat. I sacrificed it and checked the entrails. It seems to have worked, since Hannah has not been back to respond
>

You're moving the goatpost.

[John Stockwell]

Burkhard provided reference disproving that all your "we" do.

>We tend to use the term "observations" or "experimental
> results" and view those as being "facts", but we don't say that "theories"
> become "facts". On talk.origins and other places people say that "evolution
> is both a fact and a theory", when they should say that "evolution is a phenomenon as well as a theory".
>
>"Tend to", eh. How does one refute that?

>http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
"However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples."

As I said "tend". It is understood that language employing definite sounding terms such as "proof" or "fact" in experiment or observational science context still contains an element of tentativity, as new experimental results may refine or even overturn past results.

Proof in a mathematical context is a statement of an airtight argument which transforms a mere proposition to a theorem, which is as close to an absolute truth as you can get. There are no counter examples or exceptions to a theorem.

-John

[Glenn]

"John Stockwell" <john.1...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:fc052f63-7a06-4132...@googlegroups.com...

Show me in an argument here this element of tentativity.

[czebat...@gmail.com]

Couldn't that read, "phenomona as well as theory"?

gregwrld

[chris thompson]

No, the post where I sacrificed the goat is still in the same spot.

Chris

[Walter Bushell]

In article <83a9t817vkausk1ld...@4ax.com>,

Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> Do you think Glenn understands the word phenomenon? evolution?
> observations? experiments?

Some part of reality abstracted for porpoises of analysis?

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx