EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:

Hi, Archangel. The way to test the veracity of a scientific hypothesis is a statistical method called "hypothesis testing." The ultimate output of this method is a bell curve demarcated with a confidence interval, which is a point estimate plus/minus a margin of error, which we can state, with a given level of confidence, contains the actual value of the parameter we're trying to estimate.Then, there's an F-test, which compares the variation in quantitative values explained by the model (i.e., the hypothesis) to the variation not explained by the model.And, there are significance tests, which tell us whether two values can realistically be considered different from one another.And, there are more complex things, like bootstrapping. But, none of them is capable of pinpointing an exact value with 100% certainty. Not even engineers and mechanics, whom you laud so completely, can state 100% certainty of their findings. Verifying the findings with real-world tests also does not produce 100% certainty.----- Apple wasn't testing any scientific theories, either: they were looking for solution that works. For instance, ancient people were able to discover and utilize the combustion power of gunpowder over 1000 years ago. These same people thought the world's functions and processes could be described by the "Wu Xing" ("Five Phases": fire, water, wood, metal and earth), and thought that drinking mercury would make them immortal.Clearly, being able to make things that work is not the same thing as formulating a theoretical, scientific explanation for [i]why[i] or how they work.The development of your computer, although heavily reliant on theories about electricity, optics and information, is not analogous to theoretical science, and theoretical science has more right to claim the title "real science" than does engineering or technology.Edited by Bluejay, : Only one article is required before a word

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Archangel. Here is the quote once again:

quote:

---

Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)

---

Note that the "fraud" being presented here is the model of Neanderthal as a knuckle-dragging ape, and the "exposing" of the "fraud" is the new model of the erect Neanderthal.Thus, the "disproof" of this "fraud" is that Neanderthals are like humans. So, in order for you to continue using this quote to support your argument that Neanderthal as an evolutionary fraud, you have to maintain the argument that Neanderthal is like humans. Otherwise, you have contradicted your own source.That is why everybody is on to you about this. You think Neanderthal is an inhuman ape, but this is the very idea that you presented as being a fraud!

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Archangel. You did not deal with this in post 89, nor anywhere else.You claimed that the MacBook is an example of absolute knowledge derived from science. If the MacBook can be improved upon in the future, this would show that our knowledge about how to make the best MacBook possible is incomplete (tentative), thus, your claim is wrong.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Archangel.You've already got a lot to sort through, but I feel as if you missed the entire gist of my last post, so let me re-emphasize the parts I think you missed.I do not know a lot about the history of computers or thermodynamics, so let me focus on gunpowder, which is easier for me to read as a layman.Inventing a practical application for something is not the same as explaining how that something works. Gunpowder was invented and technology using it was created hundreds of years before anybody had any idea why it blew up when exposed to fire. The knowledge about why saltpeter and sulfur explode when ignited didn't come until later.If your idea of "real science" is learning how to make practical use of something you do not understand, then you are correct that evolution is not "real science." But, this is not the intended meaning of the word "science": the word "science" is derived from the Latin word scientia, which means "knowledge," not "practical application."To me, your insistence that engineering is "real science" is a bit like my former roommate insisting that poker is a "sport": it's just an attempt to usurp somebody else's legitimacy by usurping a word that you mistakenly believe to be a title of respect.-----The power of science comes from its ability to predict future applications. Studying evolution gives us the ability to predict how animals will behave in nature (game theory and foraging theory), how to make vaccines and stop diseases, and how to understand some of our own behaviors. It also gives us the ability to predict new fossil finds (see Tiktaalik as an example), and to expose frauds like Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man (whose locations and dates were not consistent with the model that ToE was producing).

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Archangel. This is getting painful to read, Archangel.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.