|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6156 days) Posts: 690 From: USA West Coast Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is NOT science: A challenge | |||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
However, it is likely that a professional scientist would know a great deal more about the scientific method than you do, correct? quote: So, it is your opinion that it is unlikely that a professional scientist would actually know more than you about what they do for a living, is that correct? Would you say that a practicing medical doctor would know more about diagnosing disease than you do?
quote: What "drives him" is beside the point. The scientific method is the same no matter who is doing the science, and there are numerous sources that explain the scientific method as well. Do you doubt that a professional mechanical engineer might have a better grasp of the concepts and physics behing what he or she does, and that due to their being an expert and professional in their field, they may know more about how they do their work than you do?
quote: Incorrect. Scientists are supposed to be biased in favor of the evidence. The method and also peer review are what correct for personal or experimental bias.
quote: The quote from TalkOrigins just destroyed what you were trying to use as support; that there are scientists who reject the ToE. The tiny minority of scientists who reject the ToE do so for personal, religious reasons, and to do so they must reject all of the evidence that points to evolution having happened.
Please briefly describe the scientific method as scientists use it. I'll bet you can't. quote: OK, then please describe the scientisfic method. I'll bet you can't.
...and this is one of your misconceptions. Scientists do not "try to prove" the ToE. The evidence supports the ToE, not scientists. quote: If you get up early in the morning, and you want to see the sunrise, do you look to the east? Why do you look in that direction instead of keeping a completely open mind about which direction you predict the sun will come up? Perhaps it is because the hypothesis that "the sun always rises in the east" has been tested so many millions of times that it would be silly and perverse to constantly doubt it and predict that the sun will rise from a different direction. It would be a big waste of time, silly, and perverse, similarly, to constantly doubt that common descent with modification is not the origin of species on Earth, because the idea has been tested millions and millions of times and has never been falsified.
quote: It is much more likely that this one find is an anomoly or a mistake than for the previous several million finds are all wrong.
The ToE deals with life ONCE IT GOT HERE, not before, as you have been told numerous times. What was that you were saying about being "always willing to learn"? Why haven't you learned the above, despite being corrected over and over again? quote: That's nice, but it is still completely wrong that the ToE has anything to do with the origin of life. It doesn't matter what people you have met feel or websites you have read say, they are all wrong if they say that the ToE addresses how life first appeared on Earth. Even Darwin was very explicit about this in Origin of Species.
quote: OK. That still doesn't make it part of the Theory.
quote: OK, good, then you will never again say that the ToE deals with how the first life appeared on Earth, but deals only with life once it got here, however it did.
Really? Please provide 5 examples of the Chemists who work on this issue that mention the ToE in their peer-reviewed professional paper. quote: Then you have no business making the claim.
quote: Until you provide me evidence that this is part of what they do professionally as practicing Chemists, all you are doinf is talking trash with no basis in fact. That's called lying.
quote: No, that's more of what people would write in a high school textbook.
[qs]But these same people would try to prove or speculate how it all started with what? You guessed it another theory.One theory leads to another, don't you think?[/quote] Yes, of course, that's how we know that theories are very successful; they spawn new scientific fields and areas to explore.
quote: Well, yes, they are related, but that is similar to saying that Meterology and the study of aerodynamics are related; aerodynamics and meterology both deal with wind, but you don't expect aerodynamics to explain where wind comes from.
quote: No, I consider the ToE to be the current best explanation for the evidence thus far.
quote: I think it is fairly likely that life emerged by chemical processes, although panspermia is not completely crazy. There isn't really all that much evidence to make me very sure about any of the ideas, so I don't really know. God could have "poofed" the first life into existence, and it would make no difference at all to the ToE.
|
|||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I agree. However, you have a double standard. You accept all of these other theories that use the exact same method and have less overall support compared to the ToE, yet you reject the ToE. That means that you have no rational, evidence-based reason to reject the ToE.
quote: Irrelevant.
quote: OK, but let's talk about a complex theory, like the Theory of General Relativity, or maybe Chaos Theory. Do you reject them?
This is very good evidence that you reject the ToE on purely religious grounds, since you thus far have not been able to produce any scientific evidence whatsoever to refute any part of it. quote: The evidence is overwhelming that germs cause disease, that matter is made up of atoms, and also that all life on Earth evolved. If you accept the first two but not the ToE, then you are rejecting evidence, most likely on religious grounds. That is evidence of your religious bias and refusal to accept scientific evidence. Remember, the ToE uses the exact same scientific method as the Germ Theory of Disease and the Atomic Theory of Matter.
quote: True. So, why do you accept the Germ theory and Atomic Theory but not Evolutionary Theory, knowing that all three use the exact same scientific method?
quote: Why do you expect there to be no gaps? Evolutionary theory does not predict a perfect fossil record. Do you know how rare fossilization is?
quote: Yeah, right.
quote: Well, good, but I really think you need to read through the TalkOrigins FAQs. You really don't know very much about Evolutionary Theory, and it is painfully obvious. It's no crime to not know something, but it is a shameful thing to remain willfully ignorant, especially when there is so much good science-based information available here. There is a great deal you have been avoiding learning.
|
|||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Creationists propose is including religious dogma in science class where it doesn't belong. quote: Yep. The following are all transcripts of court descisions in which religious people have tried to either suppress the teaching of Biology or include religious content into science curricula. McLean v. Arkansas Board of EducationEdwards v. Aguillard http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/epperson-v-arkansas.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/peloza.html Daniel v. Waters Wright v. Houston I.S.D. (District Court) Below is a resolution to include religion into public school science curricula prepared and promoted by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the US's most prominent Creation "science" organization. Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research The following is more regarding the ICR's push to get Creationism into the public schools: Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research Here is the second most important Creation "science" organization's efforts to replace science with religion in public school science classrooms:
August 1999 Newsletter
| Answers in Genesis
|
|||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Show me an experiment I can do that does not rely on my individual experience inside my own head, or your individual experience inside your own head. quote: Well, actually I would probably hook you up to a machine that showed me your brain activity in the dream study, and I would likely draw blood, take your pressure, heart rate, do an MRI, EEG, collect your urine, look at your pupil dilation, etc, etc, etc.
quote: Ah, but then you can make no claims that anything is happening except inside your own head. That's the difference between SUBjective and OBjective.
|
|||||||||||||
One_Charred_Wing Member (Idle past 6156 days) Posts: 690 From: USA West Coast Joined: |
You guys are STILL going at it?!
Admins, please shut this thing down! It's been off-topic for the last 200 posts or so! I didn't even know it was still going!! This message has been edited by Born2Preach, 08-27-2004 01:35 AM
|
|||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Coming up on the 600 message closing time anyway.
Adminnemooseus Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to Change in Moderation? or Thread Reopen Requests
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024